CESAR ANDRADE-BOLANOS V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72858 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 22 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CESAR ANDRADE-BOLANOS, Petitioner, No. 11-72858 Agency No. A070-441-457 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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 * 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). 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 11-72858

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.