NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RIGOBERTO CASTREJON-TELLES, No. 11-71863
Petitioner, Agency No. A037-441-199
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013 **
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Castrejon-Telles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Castrejon-Telles’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than twenty-one years after
the BIA’s July 5, 1989, order affirming the immigration judge’s order of
deportation, and Castrejon-Telles did not establish that an exception to the filing
deadline applied. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2) (A motion to reopen “must be filed
no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was
rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before September 30,
1996, whichever is later.”), 1003.2(c)(3) (providing exceptions).
To the extent the BIA also concluded that equitable tolling did not apply, the
BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that
Castrejon-Telles failed to establish due diligence. See Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 678-
80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes deception, fraud or
error, and exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to invoke
its sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a). See Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 2011).
Castrejon-Telles’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-71863