Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gilberto G. ROSSATY, a.k.a. Gilberto Rossatti Mendez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71903.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2013.
    Gilberto G. Rossaty, Pomona, CA, pro se.
    Laura M.L. Maroldy, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gilberto G. Rossaty, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rossaty’s motion to reopen as untimely and number barred, where Rossaty filed his motion approximately four years after his order of removal became administratively final, had filed at least seven pri- or motions to reopen, and did not demonstrate the applicability of any exception to the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

We decline to treat the Attorney General’s invitation to strike Rossaty’s opening brief as a motion to strike. See United States v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294, 1298 n. 2 (9th Cir.1996).

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