FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABDUL SAMAD SHAH; TAHIRA BIBI Nos. 08-70520
SHAH, 09-73129
Petitioners, Agency No. A070-344-113
A070-344-114
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Abdul Samad Shah and Tahira
Bibi Shah, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen
to apply for adjustment of status, as well as the BIA’s prior order dismissing Tahira
*
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).
Shah’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application
for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In 08-70520, we dismiss the petition
for review, and in 09-73129, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Tahira Shah failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). We also lack jurisdiction to review Shah’s contention that the IJ abused her
discretion and violated due process by denying a continuance because she failed to
exhaust these contentions before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed over 90 days after both petitioners’ final
administrative orders, and they did not establish that an exception to the filing
deadline applies. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).
2 09-73129
We do not consider petitioners’ contention that the BIA should have
reopened proceedings under its sua sponte authority because petitioners failed to
make this request before the agency. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678.
In No. 08-70520: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
In No. 09-73129: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
3 09-73129