Case ID: f-appx_222/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YABIN KANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72007.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
    Law Offices of Scott Warmuth, APC, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    Donald E. Keener, Esq., Alison R. Drucker, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yabin Kang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely his motion to reconsider the BIA’s order denying as untimely Kang’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of discretion, Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kang’s motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s final order of removal and Kang has not alleged any exceptions to that deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B).

We lack jurisdiction to review Kang’s argument that the BIA should have equitably tolled the filing deadline for his August 16, 2004 motion to reopen, because this petition for review is not timely as to the BIA’s October 27, 2004 order, denying that motion. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION 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.