FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA AMPIL KATIGBAK; PETER No. 08-70071
URRUTIA FERNANDEZ,
Agency Nos. A072-516-414
Petitioners, A072-401-498
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Martha Ampil Katigbak and Peter Urrutia Fernandez, natives and citizens of
the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their 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.
*
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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 it was filed nearly one year after the BIA’s August 14,
2006, order dismissing their underlying appeal, and petitioners failed to
demonstrate they qualified for an exception to the filing deadline or for equitable
tolling. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-
98 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159
(9th Cir. 2002).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 08-70071