Case ID: f-appx_515/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammed Bilal ISMAIL-YUSUF, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70688.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 8, 2018.
    
    Filed April 11, 2013.
    Houman Varzandeh, VHF Law Group, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Rosanne Perry, Trial, 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: REINHARDT and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammed Bilal Ismail-Yusuf, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We possess jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1282 and review for an abuse of discretion. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion by denying Ismail-Yusufs motion as untimely because it was filed more than five years after the agency’s administrative order of removal became final. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Ismail-Yusuf failed to establish that an exception to the filing deadline applied, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c) (7) (C) (ii), (iv); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), and did not demonstrate the reasonable diligence necessary for equitable tolling of the deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.2011). The BIA’s denial of Ismail-Yusufs motion to reopen was therefore not arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002).

We lack jurisdiction over Ismail-Yusufs challenges to the underlying merits of his 2003 removal proceeding. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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.