Jose Rivera Cid 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RIVERA CID,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71927
Agency No. A095-576-083
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Rivera Cid, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JAN 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-71927 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales,
491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Rivera Cid’s
motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed
within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and Rivera Cid did
not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see
Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.
To the extent Rivera Cid contends that the BIA violated his due process
rights by disregarding his hardship evidence, the contention is not supported by
the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-
Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --