Arturo Zuazo-Rodriguez v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO ZUAZO-RODRIGUEZ, No. 14-71554
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-566-473
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Zuazo-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen his
deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Zuazo-
Rodriguez’s motion to reopen. Zuazo-Rodriguez filed the motion nearly fifteen
years after the September 30, 1996, filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1),
and failed to establish that he qualified for equitable tolling of the filing deadline
based on the alleged due process violations committed by the IJ in Zuazo-
Rodriguez’s original proceedings, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th
Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is 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 reopen sua sponte.
See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011) (this court
lacks jurisdiction to review challenges to the BIA’s discretionary decision not to
invoke its sua sponte authority).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-71554