Michael John Burrows 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MICHAEL JOHN BURROWS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73883
Agency No. A013-016-711
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Michael John Burrows, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen and reissue its prior decision. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen, and
FILED
OCT 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73883 2
review de novo due process claims. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th
Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Burrows’ motion to reopen
because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s April 19, 2005,
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within
90 days of the final order), and Burrows failed to establish that he acted with the
due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 894
(deadline can be equitable tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing
because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”).
To the extent Burrows seeks review of the BIA’s April 19, 2005, decision
denying his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition for review
is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. INS, 315
F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
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 Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73883 3

-- 3 of 3 --