Ismael Ramirez-Bermudez 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).
TL/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL RAMIREZ-BERMUDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73538
Agency No. A075-252-491
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Ramirez-Bermudez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

TL/Research 07-73538 2
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen and review de novo constitutional 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 Ramirez-Bermudez’s second
motion to reopen as time- and number-barred where he filed the motion over five
years after the final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), and failed
to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321
F.3d at 897.
We lack jurisdiction to review Ramirez-Bermudez’s contention that the BIA
should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen his proceedings. See
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --