Susano-Garcia v. Holder , 383 F. App'x 611 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANG LIU, No. 08-70539
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-607-691
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Yang Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
*
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).
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen as
time- and number-barred because it was Liu’s second motion to reopen and it was
filed over three years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A)-(C) (motion to reopen normally limited to one and must be filed
within 90 days of final order of removal), and Liu did not show he was entitled to
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing motion to
reopen can be equitably tolled “when petitioner is prevented from filing because of
deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s February 20, 2007, order denying
Liu’s first motion to reopen because he did not timely petition for review of that
decision. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-70539