Salvador Uribe-Espinosa v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-72993 (9th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR URIBE-ESPINOSA, Petitioner, No. 08-72993 Agency No. A095-294-778 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Salvador Uribe Espinosa, 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 and to reconsider its prior order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to * 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). reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Uribe Espinosa s motion as untimely because it was filed nearly three years after the BIA s May 3, 2005, final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal), and Uribe Espinosa does not contend he is entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (deadline can be equitably tolled when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-72993

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.