Luna-Caro v. Keisler

MEMORANDUM *** In these consolidated petitions, David Luna-Caro, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his two motions to reopen cancellation of removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petitions for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Luna-Caro’s first motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because Luna-Caro did not demonstrate prejudice. Id. at 899-900 . The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Luna-Caro’s second motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (stating that motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of final order of removal). Luna-Caro also presented insufficient evidence that he was continuously present in the United States from April 9, 1989 to November 24, 1990. See Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring ten years of continuous physical presence to qualify for cancellation of removal as a threshold matter). He therefore did not show prima facie eligibility for relief. See INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 145 , 101 S.Ct. 1027 , 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981) (per curiam). To the extent Luna-Caro challenges the agency’s hardship determination, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). Luna-Caro’s remaining contentions are not persuasive. PETITION FOR RÉVIEW DENIED. (03-73598). *351 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. (06-71281). This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.