FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR SANDOVAL RAMIREZ, No. 09-70525
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-575-440
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Sandoval Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law and
*
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).
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandoval Ramirez’s motion
to reopen as untimely where he filed the motion more than three years after the
final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Contrary to Sandoval
Ramirez’s contention that he may seek reopening at any time to apply for relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), the time limit set forth in 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) applies to motions to reopen requesting CAT relief.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Sandoval Ramirez
failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing
deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003), or changed
circumstances in Mexico, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). His contentions that the
filing deadline should be tolled based on his psychological state and the
government’s failure to notify him of the filing deadline are unavailing.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Sandoval Ramirez’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70525