Flores-Arteaga

MEMORANDUM **

1. To the extent we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to grant section 212(c) relief, we conclude *767 that the BIA acted within its discretion in re-weighing the equities in light of the seriousness of petitioner’s conviction. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003 . 1(d)(3)(h). The BIA did not misinterpret Washington State law, engage in impermissible fact-finding or create a per se rule against granting relief.

2. The IJ and BIA did not abuse their discretion in denying petitioner’s first motion to reopen because petitioner improperly filed the motion with the IJ rather than the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2 (a), 1003.23(b)(1). In any event, there was no prejudice because the BIA subsequently considered the additional evidence in response to his second motion to reopen and was “not persuaded that the evidence submitted with this motion, considered with the evidence of record, supports reopening for further consideration of the exercise of discretion, which is ultimately dispositive of the application for a 212(c) waiver.” We lack jurisdiction to second-guess the BIA’s discretionary decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B).

3. Petitioner does not…