Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pavel DOUDRENOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 2, 2011.
    Chelsea E. Haleynelson, Esquire, Law Office of Chelsea E. Haleynelson, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    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: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pavel Doudrenov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Doudrenov’s motion to reopen as untimely, where the motion was filed over seven years after Doudrenov’s removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), and Doudrenov failed to allege that he did not receive proper notice or that his failure to appear at the hearing was through no fault of his own, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C).

To the extent that Doudrenov challenges the IJ’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to review such a challenge. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED, in part; DISMISSED, in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.