FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS PATROCINIO PEREZ No. 10-73030
BARRIOS,
Agency No. A070-643-789
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Patrocinio Perez Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 based
*
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).
on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez Barrios’s motion to
reopen where he filed the motion more than twelve years after entry of his final
administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(1), and he failed to establish the due
diligence required to warrant equitable tolling of the motion’s deadline, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is
prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner
acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud or error”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d
818, 824 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-73030