Martinez Gutierrez v. Holder , 383 F. App'x 609 ( 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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JUN 10 2010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
    PEDRO MARTINEZ GUTIERREZ;                        No. 08-70715
    TERESITA DE JESUS ALFARO
    CADENA,                                          Agency Nos. A096-051-860
    A096-051-861
    Petitioners,
    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.
    Pedro Martinez Gutierrez and Teresita De Jesus Alfaro Cadena, natives and
    citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the
    denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 
    516 F.3d 770
    , 773 (9th Cir. 2008),
    and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’
    motion to reopen because the motion was filed almost ten months after the BIA’s
    October 5, 2006, order dismissing the underlying appeal. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    ;
    see also Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 
    532 F.3d 946
    , 949 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)
    (“[T]he pendency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the
    statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA.”).
    To the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
    sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction. See Ekimian v. INS,
    
    303 F.3d 1153
    , 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
    Because the untimeliness of the motion is dispositive, we do not reach
    petitioners’ remaining contentions.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                   08-70715
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70715

Citation Numbers: 383 F. App'x 609

Judges: Canby, Fletcher, Thomas

Filed Date: 6/10/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023