Hector Montejano v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR ROGELIO CASAS No. 10-72254
MONTEJANO,
Agency No. A036-896-686
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hector Rogelio Casas Montejano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se 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 discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
*
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).
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Casas’s April 29, 2010,
motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eleven years after the
final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be
filed within 90 days of final order of removal), and Casas did not show he was
entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing
motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from
filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Casas’s motion to reopen to
apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), because the BIA
considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v.
INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall
be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the remaining contentions raised in the
opening brief because Casas failed to raise them before the BIA and thereby failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
2 10-72254
(9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions
not raised before the agency).
We deny Casa’s request for a remand to supplement his application for relief
under the CAT, see Khosurassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requesting remand is “not an appropriate method of seeking this relief”), and we
do not otherwise consider the new evidence submitted with Casas’s brief, see
Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1290 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-72254