
    Erik Raul BALCAZAR-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70782.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 26, 2010.
    Erik Raul Balcazar-Rivera, Tustin, CA, pro se.
    U.S. Department of Justice, Monica An-toun, Esquire, Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erik Raul Balcazar-Rivera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying- his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i), Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Balcazar-Rivera’s appeal where he failed to state specific grounds for appeal in his Notice of Appeal and did not file a separate brief or statement. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2004). Although Balea-zar-Rivera alleges that he never received the relevant briefing schedule, the record indicates that a schedule was mailed to his most recent address of record.

To the extent Baleazar-Rivera challenges the BIA’s May 15, .2008, order denying his motion to reconsider, we lack jurisdiction to consider it because Balea-zar-Rivera did not petition for review of that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per .curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     