The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-71375•Gustavo Rodrigo Enriquez- Pesantes v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General
07-71375Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 21, 2010
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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO RODRIGO ENRIQUEZ-
PESANTES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71375
Agency No. A029-291-592
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Rodrigo Enriquez-Pesantes, a native and citizen of Ecuador,
petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
LR/Research 07-71375 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Enriquez-Pesantes’ motion
to reopen as untimely because he filed it almost six years after the agency’s final
order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and he failed to establish that
any of the regulatory exceptions apply, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4).
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).
To the extent Enriquez-Pesantes contends that the BIA failed to consider
some or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not
overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Larita-
Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.