Case ID: f-appx_444/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Petar Donchev BAKALOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72365.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 20, 2011.
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petar Donchev Bakalov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 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. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bakalov’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed five years after the final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bakalov failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.

To the extent that Bakalov challenges the BIA’s December 22, 2005, order, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

We need not consider Bakalov’s remaining contentions in light of our disposition.

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.