Joshi v. Holder , 367 F. App'x 859 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MINTON LAL JOSHI, No. 07-72065
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-364-900
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Minton Lal Joshi, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
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
*
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).
AP/Research
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lara-Torres v.
Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Joshi’s third motion to
reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed more than
two years after the BIA’s final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
This court lacks jurisdiction over Joshi’s contention that the filing deadline
should have been equitably tolled because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction
to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
AP/Research 2 07-72065