Eang Im v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 479 F. App'x 139 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           SEP 18 2012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
    EANG IM,                                          No. 09-73527
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A079-539-378
    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.
    Eang Im, a native and citizen of Cambodia, 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. Gonzales, 400
    *
    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).
    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 Im’s motion to reopen
    because the motion was filed nearly nine months after the BIA’s January 5, 2009,
    decision vacating the immigration judge’s decision to defer Im’s removal and
    ordering him removed, 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 Im failed to
    allege 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 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
    , 824 (9th Cir. 2011).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                    09-73527
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-73527

Citation Numbers: 479 F. App'x 139

Judges: Wardlaw, Clifton, Smith

Filed Date: 9/18/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024