Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0994-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joaquin Garrido SUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73658.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 16, 2009.
    
    Filed Feb. 5, 2009.
    Thomas J. Stefanski, Esquire, Ask Law Group, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Larry P. Cote, Esquire, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, 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: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s November 2004 and February 2005 decisions because petitioner did not file a petition for review after either of these rulings. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1257-58 (9th Cir.1996). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in its June 2004 decision reversing the IJ, because the IJ granted petitioner’s motion to reopen solely on the basis of an erroneous belief that DHS had failed to oppose the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iv).

DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.