Chunhua Huang v. Gonzales

Good Law
171 F. App'x 50
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 14, 2006No. 05-70093California326 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Chunhua Huang filed a habeas petition in district court, which was transferred to this court as a petition for review, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and abuse of discretion in various immigration proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a) and deny the petition for review.

Because the effective date of Huang’s petition is January 21, 2004, we only have jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the BIA’s order dated December 23, 2003. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1) (stating that an alien must file a petition for review “not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal”); Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405 , 115 S.Ct. 1537 , 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding that this time requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional”) (citation omitted).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Huang’s motion for reconsideration. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (b)(1) states, “A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” However, Huang’s motion does not specify any legal or factual *51 error on the part of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.