Roel Labicani Romualdo 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROEL LABICANI ROMUALDO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74349
Agency No. A036-111-169
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Roel Labicani Romualdo, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-74349 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Romualdo’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after the final
administrative order and over two years after the special motions deadline to seek
relief under former section 212(c), see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2) & 1003.44(h), and
the record does not establish that equitable tolling was warranted, see
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 1996) (filing limitation
period begins to run when the agency sends its decision to the correct address).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
To the extent Romualdo challenges the BIA’s November 4, 2004, order
dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for
review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315
F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --