Jorge Mier-Fiorito v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 479 F. App'x 136 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 18 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE OMAR MIER-FIORITO, No. 10-71195
Petitioner, Agency No. A026-788-775
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.
Jorge Omar Mier-Fiorito, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 Mier-Fiorito’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than five years after the
BIA’s October 12, 2004, order dismissing his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the final
administrative order), and Mier-Fiorito failed to establish grounds for equitable
tolling, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-80 (equitable tolling available
where petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as
long as petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to review Mier-Fiorito’s claim that his voluntary
departure order was vacated when he failed to post bond because he did not raise
this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the
agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-71195