FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO GARCIA YANAGUI, No. 07-73991
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-928-003
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Garcia Yanagui, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second
motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
KY/Research
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d
770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia Yanagui’s second
motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred, where the motion was filed
almost four years after the final administrative order, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and Garcia Yanagui did not show he was entitled to equitable
tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review Garcia Yanagui’s contention that the BIA
should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen his proceedings. See
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
We decline Garcia Yanagui’s request to remand his case to the BIA for
clarification of its order because the BIA’s decision is not ambiguous. Garcia
Yanagui’s contention that the BIA failed to follow its own precedent is meritless.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
KY/Research 2 07-73991