Richard Bernard v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD BERNARD,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70055
Agency No. A071-781-322
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Richard Bernard, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
FILED
JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Bernard’s untimely motion
to reopen to seek adjustment of status for battered spouses, because Bernard failed
to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to waive the one-year filing deadline.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III). The record belies Bernard’s contention that
the BIA did not adequately explain the basis for its extraordinary circumstances
determination. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(requiring only that the BIA announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable
review).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion by determining that Bernard’s
motion to reopen did not warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline. See
Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (equitable
tolling is available where a petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing
on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond the petitioner’s
control).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Bernard’s unexhausted contentions
regarding exceptional circumstances and extreme hardship determinations in
relation to his stepson. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
13-70055 2

-- 2 of 3 --

(no jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in the petitioner’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-70055 3

-- 3 of 3 --