Gilberto Rossaty v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 30 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GILBERTO G. ROSSATY, a.k.a. Gilberto              No. 12-71903
    Rossatti Mendez,
    Agency No. A072-523-182
    Petitioner,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 24, 2013 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Gilberto G. Rossaty, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
    review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
    motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . Reviewing for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen,
    *
    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).
    He v. Gonzales, 
    501 F.3d 1128
    , 1130 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for
    review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rossaty’s motion to reopen
    as untimely and number barred, where Rossaty filed his motion approximately four
    years after his order of removal became administratively final, had filed at least
    seven prior motions to reopen, and did not demonstrate the applicability of any
    exception to the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen. See 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(I); 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2).
    We decline to treat the Attorney General’s invitation to strike Rossaty’s
    opening brief as a motion to strike. See United States v. Rowe, 
    96 F.3d 1294
    , 1298
    n.2 (9th Cir. 1996).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   12-71903
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-71903

Filed Date: 9/30/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/14/2015