Shair Siahaan v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 528 F. App'x 697 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAIR JUNJUNGAN SIAHAAN, No. 11-72068
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-635-789
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 26, 2013 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Shair Junjungan Siahaan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reconsider its prior order. We review for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS,
*
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).
311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Siahaan’s motion to
reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the BIA’s final
removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and
because Siahaan does not contend that he is entitled to equitable tolling, see
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that deadline for
motion to reconsider may be equitably tolled under certain circumstances). To the
extent that Siahaan contends that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to
exercise its authority to sua sponte reconsider his case, we lack jurisdiction to
consider that issue. See Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir.
2009) (recognizing that this court does not have jurisdiction to review an alien’s
claim that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power to reconsider or
reopen a prior order); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
We do not have jurisdiction to consider the remaining issues raised by
Siahaan on appeal because he did not exhaust those issues in his motion to
reconsider before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72068