Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0866-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose RIVERA CID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71927.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 8, 2010.
    Jose Rivera Cid, Union City, CA, pro se.
    Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Rivera Cid, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Rivera Cid’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and Rivera Cid did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.

To the extent Rivera Cid contends that the BIA violated his due process rights by disregarding his hardship evidence, the contention is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

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.