Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Souguech HONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71474.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 4, 2011.
    David Craig Paquin, Esquire, Ocean View Law Group, Torrance, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Souguech Hong, a native and citizen of Cambodia, 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. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceeding, see Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818 (9th Cir.2011). We also lack jurisdiction to review Hong’s contention regarding equitable tolling because Hong failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s September 23, 2005, order denying Hong’s underlying appeal because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Hong’s remaining contention is unpersuasive.

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