Villagomez
Villagomez v. Mukasey
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings and/or motion to reconsider.
We review the BIA’s denials of motions to reopen or to reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005).
The regulations provide that “[a] motion to reopen shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing....” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(1). Petitioner’s motion to reopen failed to identify new facts and instead stated that petitioner was attempting to overturn his state criminal conviction. Petitioner is prohibited from collaterally attacking the propriety of his state court conviction in immigration proceedings. See Urbina-Mauricio v. INS, 989 F.2d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.1993). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen. See Lara-Torres, 383 F.3d at 972 .
The BIA also found that, to the extent that petitioner sought reconsideration of the BIA’s June 22, 2007 decision, petitioner’s motion was time-barred. The regulations provide that “[a] motion to reconsider…