Carranza

I dissent. In this case, a procedural rule is used against a forty-eight year old immigrant woman, who, without counsel, filed a motion with the BIA to reconsider the denial of her cancellation of removal claim. Although Carranza was filing pro se, she managed to file her motion to reconsider only eleven days after the deadline. Because she filed this motion late, the BIA denied as untimely the motion to reconsider her case.

In 2002, Carranza filed an asylum application. Her application does not reflect that she had any assistance filing this claim but it was likely filed by a notario 1 of some kind. These individuals encourage undocumented immigrants to file asylum applications and collect fees for the “assistance” they render with the application. Carranza’s application does not include anything that might support an asylum claim. After her asylum office interview, Carranza was referred to immigration court where she withdrew her asylum application and applied for cancellation of removal. Although Carranza had counsel in immigration court, she made a pro se appeal to the BIA and to this court.

Carranza entered the United States when she was approximately…

MEMORANDUM **

Gudelia Florentina Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) February 15, 2006, denial of her “motion to reconsider.” We have jurisdic *62 tion pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

Carranza argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in finding her ineligible for cancellation of removal. However, she appealed only the BIA’s denial of her motion to reconsider. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to consider her arguments with respect to the BIA’s initial decision regarding ineligibility.

The BIA denied Carranza’s motion to reconsider on the basis that the motion was untimely. In her brief before this court, Carranza does not challenge that timeliness finding, and has therefore forfeited the issue. Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996). Because the propriety of the BIA’s dismissal on the basis of timeliness was the only issue to be reviewed, we must deny the petition. We note, however, that we see no merit to the underlying motion in any event.

Despite our conclusion, we agree with the sentiments expressed in the dissent. This is an unfortunate outcome in a…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO UR T OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUDELIA FLORENTINA CARRANZA, No. 06-71257

Petitioner, Agency No. A095-446-933

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 7, 2009** Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Gudelia Florentina Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ('BIA') February 15, 2006, denial of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). her 'motion to reconsider.' We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. y 1252 and

deny the petition.

Carranza argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in finding her

ineligible for cancellation of removal.…