Anthony W. Chiu 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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY W. CHIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72886
Agency No. A077-250-473
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.
Anthony W. Chiu, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motions to
reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 07-72886 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider, Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA properly construed Chiu’s April 26, 2007, filing as a motion to
reopen and reconsider. See id. at 793. So construed, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Chiu failed to offer any new or
previously unavailable evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider as
untimely because it was filed beyond the thirty-day time limit for motions to
reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to review Chiu’s challenges to the agency’s February
28, 2007, order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --