Gilberto Velasco Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO VELASCO SANCHEZ; No. 11-71022
BERTHA ARREGUIN CONTRERAS,
Agency Nos. A079-572-703
Petitioners, A079-572-704
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Velasco Sanchez and Bertha Arreguin Contreras, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as number- and time-barred where the successive motion was filed more
than four years after their removal orders became final, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners do not claim that they qualify for any regulatory
exceptions to or equitable tolling of the filing limitations, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011)
(equitable tolling available during periods when petitioner is prevented from filing
because of a deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner acts with due diligence
in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-71022