Montes-Sanchez v. Lynch, 13-74065
Decision Date | 03 November 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 14-70880,No. 13-74065,13-74065,14-70880 |
Parties | EZEQUIEL MONTES-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM*On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Ezequiel Montes-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order (No. 13-74065), and the BIA's order denying of his motion toreconsider (No. 14-70880). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 13-74065, and deny the petition for review in No. 14-70880.
As to petition No. 13-74065, contrary to Montes-Sanchez' contention, the petty offense exception of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) does not render him eligible for cancellation of removal, where his conviction is otherwise covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). See Mancilla-Delafuente v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 2015) ( ). Montes-Sanchez raises contentions regarding the record of conviction and whether his conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude that were not raised before the IJ or the BIA in his direct appeal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review these contentions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2011) ; cf. Mutuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) ( ).
As to petition No. 14-70880, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Montes-Sanchez' motion to reconsider, where Montes-Sanchez did not point to any alleged errors of fact or law in the prior BIA decision, but rather asserted a new legal argument not previously raised before the agency. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) ( ); Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1230 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) ( ).
In No. 13-74065: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
In No. 14-70880: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
*. This disposition is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial