Rodriguez v. Holder ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ARANDA RODRIGUEZ, Nos. 06-74444
06-75524
Petitioner,
Agency No. A095-575-895
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, David Aranda Rodriguez, a native
and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders denying his two motions to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
*
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).
reopen. Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007). In No. 06-74444
we dismiss the petition for review. In No. 06-75524 we deny the petition for
review.
The petition for review in No. 06-74444 is untimely, because it was filed
more than thirty days after the BIA’s decision denying Rodriguez’s first motion to
reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188
(9th Cir. 2003) (the requirement of a timely petition for review is “mandatory and
jurisdictional, and cannot be tolled”). We therefore dismiss that petition for lack of
jurisdiction. See Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 948 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam).
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and number barred because it was filed more than one year
after the final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Rodriguez did not
show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh,
491 F.3d at 1096-97.
In No. 06-74444: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
In No. 06-75524: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 06-74444