Santos-Rivas v. Holder , 361 F. App'x 871 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RICARDO PEREZ, No. 07-73070
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-733-412
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ricardo Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LR/Research
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de novo claims of constitutional
violations in immigration proceedings, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095
(9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Perez’s motion to
reopen because it was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final removal
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Perez did not show that he acted with the
due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97. The
denial of Perez’s motion to reopen did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s December 20, 2002, order denying
Perez’s motion to remand because he failed to timely petition for review of that
order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159
(9th Cir. 2002).
Perez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
LR/Research 2 07-73070