Case Name: Faviola PEREZ-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 09-72529
Parties: Faviola PEREZ-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Faviola PEREZ-ROBLES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72529.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 13, 2011.
Philippe Dwelshauvers, Esquire, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kohsei Ugumori, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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
Faviola Perez-Robles, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia in 1991. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Perez-Robles' contention that the IJ should have equitably tolled the time limitation for her motion to reopen, and her contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to consider some of her evidence, because she failed to exhaust these contentions before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
To the extent Perez-Robles challenges the IJ's decision not to exercise her sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.