GILBERTO VELASCO SANCHEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71022 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 17 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GILBERTO VELASCO SANCHEZ; BERTHA ARREGUIN CONTRERAS, Petitioners, No. 11-71022 Agency Nos. A079-572-703 A079-572-704 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2012** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Gilberto Velasco Sanchez and Bertha Arreguin Contreras, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 * 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). U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen as number- and time-barred where the successive motion was filed more than four years after their removal orders became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners do not claim that they qualify for any regulatory exceptions to or equitable tolling of the filing limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling available during periods when petitioner is prevented from filing because of a deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering such circumstances). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See MejiaHernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-71022

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.