Case Name: Anastasiya UZZHINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-13
Citations: 471 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 08-74764
Parties: Anastasiya UZZHINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 706–706

Head Matter:
Anastasiya UZZHINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74764.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 13, 2012.
Alex Gortinsky, Esquire, Law Offices of Alex Gortinsky, Fair Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Theodore Charles Hirt, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
Anastasiya Uzzhina petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Uzzhina's motion to reopen as untimely because Uzzhina filed her motion more than three years after the BIA's final order of removal, and she did not establish that her motion is subject to any exceptions to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Uzzhina's due process contentions are therefore not persuasive. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority. Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Uzzhina's unexhausted contention that equitable tolling should apply in her case. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
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.