Filed: Dec. 30, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 30 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FRANCISCO REBOLLEDO-ADAN, No. 06-70391 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-728-191 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Francisco Rebolledo-Adan, a native and citizen of Mexico, peti
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 30 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FRANCISCO REBOLLEDO-ADAN, No. 06-70391 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-728-191 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 15, 2009 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Francisco Rebolledo-Adan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petit..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FRANCISCO REBOLLEDO-ADAN, No. 06-70391
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-728-191
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Rebolledo-Adan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey,
514
F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rebolledo-Adan’s motion to
reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s October 6, 2005, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
JT/Research 2 06-70391