22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T419,MEMORANDUM ** Luis Carlos Ceballos-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review *537 of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek administrative closure. We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Ceballos-Ramirez’s motion to reconsider its underlying discretionary decision regarding administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative closure for lack of a sufficiently meaningful standard to evaluate the decision); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (limiting the court’s jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider its underling discretionary determination). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T434,

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Carlos Ceballos-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review *537 of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek administrative closure. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Ceballos-Ramirez’s motion to reconsider its underlying discretionary decision regarding administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative closure for lack of a sufficiently meaningful standard to evaluate the decision); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (limiting the court’s jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider its underling discretionary determination).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.