Pedro Manuel Lamadrid- Castillo v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO MANUEL LAMADRID-
CASTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71821
Agency No. A201-174-611
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Manuel Lamadrid-Castillo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions 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
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.
FILED
MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lamadrid-Castillo’s motion
to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than 11 months after his
final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be
filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), and failed to establish materially
changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing
deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), or ineffective assistance of counsel warranting
equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-
80 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from
timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as the
alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).
To the extent Lamadrid-Castillo contends the BIA erred in declining to
invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to
consider that claim. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th
Cir. 2011) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s sua sponte
determinations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-71821 2

-- 2 of 2 --