Case ID: f-appx_520/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar ANDRADE-BOLANOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72858.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 22, 2013.
    Cesar Andrade-Bolanos, El Paso, TX, pro se.
    Ilissa M. Gould, Trial, Leslie McKay, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, 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

Cesar Andrade-Bolanos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Andrade-Bolanos’ motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly two years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and An-drade-Bolanos does not qualify for any of the regulatory exceptions to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), or equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Andrade-Bolanos’ underlying due process claims.

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.