Francisco Diaz-Gutierrez 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).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO DIAZ-GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74580
Agency No. A078-968-161
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.
Francisco Diaz-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 07-74580 2
motion for administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a request for
administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120
(9th Cir. 2009).
To the extent that Diaz-Gutierrez’s motion could be construed as a motion to
reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz-Gutierrez’s second
motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed
more than three years after the BIA’s final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004) (BIA
denials of motions to reopen are reviewed for abuse of discretion), amended by 404
F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --