Case ID: f-appx_580/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lourdes FELIX-GARCIA, a.k.a. Lourdes Felix, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70607.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed June 26, 2014.
    John Robert Holya, Esquire, Law Office of John Holya, Cave Creek, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Ann M. Wel-haf, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lourdes Felix-Gareia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order because Felix-Gareia filed her petition for review beyond the mandatory 30-day filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir.2012) (“The thirty-day time limit for filing a petition for review, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), ‘is mandatory and jurisdictional, and cannot be tolled.’ ” (citation omitted)). Felix-Garcia’s opening brief contains no assertion of official misleading or regulatory noncompliance that could trigger an exception to the filing deadline. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (“[W]e generally will not take up arguments not raised in an alien’s opening brief before this court.”); cf. Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003) (discussing exceptions to the filing deadline).

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