Court Opinion

ID: 803912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-07-09 20:05:04+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:10.138071
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUL 09 2012

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS PATROCINIO PEREZ                          No. 10-73030
BARRIOS,
                                                 Agency No. A070-643-789
               Petitioner,

  v.                                             MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted June 26, 2012 **

Before:        SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

       Carlos Patrocinio Perez Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
on ineffective assistance of counsel. 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez Barrios’s motion to

reopen where he filed the motion more than twelve years after entry of his final

administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(1), and he failed to establish the due

diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the motion’s deadline, see

Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner

acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud or error”).

      We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d

818, 824 (9th Cir. 2011).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                           2                                    10-73030