N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KHALID ISSA M ANSOUR , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-74136 Age n c y No. A071-781-760 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 15, 2016 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Kha lid Issa

M ansour, a

native of Kuwa it a

nd c itiz e n of Jorda n, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his motion to re c onside r the de nia l of his m o tion to re ope n. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. 

# FIL ED APR 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion the de n i a l of a m otion to re ope n. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the p e tition for re v i e w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing M ansour’ s m otion for re c o nside ration, whe re the m otion fa ile d to e sta blish a ny e rror in the IJ’ s pre vious orde r de ny ing M ansour’ s e arlie r m otion to re o pe n . Se e 8 C . F.R . § 1003.23(b)(2) (“ A m o tion to re c onside r sha ll . . . spe c ify [] the e rrors of fa c t or la w in the Im m i gration Judge ’ s prior de c ision a nd sha ll be supporte d by

pe rtine nt a uthority .” ). Spe c ific a l ly , M ansour fa ile d to e sta blish tha t the IJ e rre d in de ny ing his m otion to re ope n

a s untim e l y , whe re M an sour file d the m o tion m ore tha n e ight y e ars a fte r his fina l orde r of re m ova l, 8 C . F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1), a nd fa ile d to e sta blish tha t he wa s e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling of the

filing de a dline , se e Iturribarria v. IN

S , 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th C ir. 2003) (e quita ble tolling is a

va ila ble to a pe titione r who is pre ve nte d from tim e ly filing a m otion to re o pe n due to de c e ption, fra

ud or e rror, a s long a s pe titione r e xe rc ise s due dilige nc e in disc ove ring suc h c irc um sta nc e s); Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th C ir. 2011) (due dilige nc e re quire s pe titione r to ta ke re a sona

ble ste p s to inve s tiga

te any suspe c te d fraud or e rror or, if he is ignora nt of suc h c irc um sta

nc e s, m ake re a s ona ble e fforts to pursue re l ie f).

1 3 - 7 4 1 3 6 2W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w M ansour’ s c la im s tha t the IJ in his underly ing 2003 re m ova l proc e e d i ngs c om m i tte d e rrors of la

w a nd viola te d due proc e ss be c a use this pe tition is not tim e ly a s to tha t 2003 re m o va l orde r. Se e MartinezSe rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th C ir. 1996) (this c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w a n unde rly ing orde r of re m ova l, whe re a lie n did not se e k tim e ly re vie w of that orde r, and inste a d file s pe tition for re vie w from the de nia l of a

subse que nt m otion to re o pe n ). Although the B IA a ddre sse d M ansour’ s substa nt ive c h a lle nge s to his 2003 proc e e dings in its de c ision, it did so only in the c onte xt of de te rm ining whe the r to e xe rc ise its disc re tion to invoke its sua sponte a uthority , a

nd we la c k jurisdic tion to re v ie w the B IA’ s sua sponte de te rm ination. S e e Me j ia-He rnande

z v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th C ir. 2011) (this c ourt la c ks jurisdic t ion to re vie w c h a lle nge s to theB IA’ s disc re tiona ry de c ision not to invoke its sua sponte a uthority). Ac c ordingly , we do not a ddre ss M ansour’ s c onte ntions re g arding a transc ript of proc e e dings. In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h M ansour’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 4 1 3 6 3