Case ID: f-appx_121/html/0756-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hector Hugo MACIAS-ORNELAS; Teresa Beltran De Macias, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71585. Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 8, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 10, 2005.
    Raul Gomez, Law Office of Raul Gomez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Ann Carroll Varnon, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, CUDAHY, and RYMER, Circuit .Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Hugo Macias-Ornelas and his wife Teresa Beltran De Macias (the Maciases) petition for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their untimely motion to reopen. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

We previously dismissed the petition to the extent it claims that the BIA erred in failing sua sponte to reopen their proceedings. Macias-Ornelas v. Ashcroft, No. 03-71585 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2004); see also Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). The only remaining argument that we can discern is that the Maciases’ motion to reopen was not untimely because the deadline was equitably tolled, but we lack jurisdiction to consider any such argument because it was not raised before the BIA nor was any point made that would have put the BIA on notice of any such issue. Thus, administrative remedies were not exhausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to our jurisdiction.”); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to equitable tolling deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue on appeal).

PETITION DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.