Cesar Andrade-Bolanos v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR ANDRADE-BOLANOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72858
Agency No. A070-441-457
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Andrade-Bolanos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72858 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Andrade-Bolanos’ motion to
reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly two years after his removal order
became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Andrade-Bolanos does not qualify
for any of the regulatory exceptions to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c), or equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua
sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Andrade-Bolanos’ underlying
due process claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --