Case ID: f-appx_309/html/0189-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Herminia AREVALOS-ALFARO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72957.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      OIL, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Herminia Arevalos-Alfaro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than ten months after the BIA’s March 27, 2006 order dismissing Petitioner’s appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s contention that the time limitation should have been equitably tolled because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court generally lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not exhausted).

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.