Case Name: Luis SANCHEZ-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-06
Citations: 435 F. App'x 701
Docket Number: No. 09-73048
Parties: Luis SANCHEZ-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 701–701

Head Matter:
Luis SANCHEZ-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73048.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 6, 2011.
Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jessica Segall, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Sanehez-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez-Bautista's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Sanehez-Bautista did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
Because the BIA failed to address Sanchez-Bautista's request to reopen his proceedings sua sponte, we remand for the BIA to consider Sanchez-Bautista's request in the first instance. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.