FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO PEREZ-ORELLANO, No. 09-71560
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-894-158
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Perez-Orellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
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). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez-Orellano’s motion
to reopen as untimely where Perez-Orellano filed it more than 11 years after his
deportation order became final, and Perez-Orellano has not met any of the
exceptions to the filing limitations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)-(3).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). If we had jurisdiction to review the
BIA’s decision, we would find no abuse of discretion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-71560