Opinion
No. 06-72429.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 5, 2009.
Felipe Ramiro Angon Martinez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, William C. Peachey, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A097-361-181.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Felipe Ramiro Angon Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Angon Martinez's motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
The BIA also acted within its discretion in denying a continuance on the ground that Angon Martinez failed to demonstrate good cause. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247.
To the extent Angon Martinez challenges the BIA's February 7, 2006, order, we lack jurisdiction because Angon Martinez did not timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).