Susano-Garcia v. Holder , 383 F. App'x 617 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 10 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TEODORO SUSANO-GARCIA,                           No. 08-70547
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A078-000-217
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Teodoro Susano-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
    reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
    review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria
    *
    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).
    v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part
    the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Susano-Garcia’s motion to
    reopen as time- and number-barred because it was his second motion to reopen and
    it was filed over two years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229a(c)(7)(A)-(C) (motion to reopen normally limited to one, and must be filed
    within 90 days of final administrative order of removal), and Susano-Garcia did
    not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 
    321 F.3d at 897
     (due
    diligence required for equitable tolling).
    Susano-Garcia’s contention that the BIA did not sufficiently address his
    hardship evidence fails because the BIA’s time- and number-bar determination was
    dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7).
    We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s sua sponte determination. See
    Ekimian v. INS, 
    303 F.3d 1153
    , 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                 08-70547
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70547

Citation Numbers: 383 F. App'x 617

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/10/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024