Case ID: f-appx_423/html/0729-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus CASTENEDA-RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73379.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed March 23, 2011.
    Arnold S. Jaffe, Law Office of Arnold S. Jaffe, Santa Barbara, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

The government’s petition for panel rehearing is granted.

The memorandum disposition filed on June 8, 2010, is withdrawn. A new memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.

Any petition for rehearing of the new memorandum disposition must be filed within 45 days.

MEMORANDUM

Jesus Casteneda-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Casteneda-Rivera’s motion as untimely where the motion was filed more than five months after the BIA’s final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen are reviewed for abuse of discretion), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005).

We lack jurisdiction to review Castene-da-Rivera’s equitable tolling contention because he failed to exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We agree with the determination in this court’s March 13, 2008, order that at the time that Casteneda-Rivera filed his motion to stay his voluntary departure period, his voluntary departure period had expired. Casteneda-Rivera’s motion to reopen did not stay his period of voluntary departure because the motion was untimely. See Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278, 1280 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that the BIA abuses its discretion “when it dismisses a motion to reopen, timely filed by an alien during his voluntary period, because the alien subsequently fails to depart prior to the end of the period while awaiting the BIA’s decision”) (emphasis added); see also Barroso v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir.2005) (“the timely filing of a motion to reopen ... automatically tolls the voluntary departure period”) (emphasis added).

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.