Case ID: f-appx_562/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mudiaga Obijuru URIE, a.k.a. Troy Urie, a.k.a. Troy Mudiaga Urie, a.k.a. Mydiaga Urig, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 12-73672, 13-70209.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 13, 2014.
    Mudiaga Urie, pro se.
    Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial, OIL, 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, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed his motion more than four years after his final removal order, and he did not establish that his motion was subject to equitable tolling to delay the filing deadline for the sole purpose of allowing his visa petition to become current. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner’s control). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reconsider because he failed to establish any error in its prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1180 n. 2.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.