FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 9 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO GAMALIEL MARIN, No. 10-71965
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-659-371
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Gamaliel Marin, 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 order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
*
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).
novo questions of law, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in
part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Marin’s motion because it
was filed more than nine years after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Marin did not establish that he acted with the due diligence
required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272
F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where,
despite due diligence, petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the
existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner’s control).
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
Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-71965