Pedro Lamadrid-Castillo v. Loretta E. Lynch , 604 F. App'x 595 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO MANUEL LAMADRID- No. 13-71821
CASTILLO,
Agency No. A201-174-611
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Manuel Lamadrid-Castillo, a native and citizen of Peru, 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 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.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 in denying Lamadrid-Castillo’s motion
to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than 11 months after his
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be
filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and failed to establish materially
changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing
deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), or ineffective assistance of counsel warranting
equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-
80 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from
timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as the
alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
To the extent Lamadrid-Castillo contends the BIA erred in declining to
invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to
consider that claim. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th
Cir. 2011) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte
determinations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-71821