Godoy-Flores v. Holder , 440 F. App'x 569 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY MICHAEL JEX; GILDA No. 09-74038
MAE MIDDLETON,
Agency Nos. A075-683-134
Petitioners, A075-683-135
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Michael Jex and Gilda Mae Middleton, natives and citizens of
Belize, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 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 petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where they filed the motion more than four years after the final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they failed to establish they
acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the BIA should
have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen their proceedings. See Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 821 (9th Cir. 2011).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-74038