Case Name: Lenou PHRASAVATH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-16
Citations: 185 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 04-75587
Parties: Lenou PHRASAVATH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
Lenou PHRASAVATH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Decided June 16, 2006.
Samuel Ogbu, Esq., Emeziem & Ogbu, LLP, Emeryville, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div., Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lenou Phrasavath, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying as untimely his motion to reopen for the purpose of seeking adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition for review.
Reviewing de novo, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006), we reject Phrasavath's contention that his due process rights were violated by the BIA's decision. Phrasavath has offered no explanation for why his motion to reopen was not filed until January 21, 2004, more than a year after the BIA's dismissal of his appeal. None of the pertinent supporting evidence submitted with the motion to reopen was unavailable prior to the BIA's December 23, 2002 decision. The BIA therefore properly applied the filing deadline of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) to deny Phrasavath's motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.