Karamvir Kaur 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARAMVIR KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70877
Agency No. A077-659-265
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Karamvir Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
AUG 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70877 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reconsider
as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the BIA’s prior order. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed with the BIA within 30
days after the mailing of the decision).
We lack jurisdiction to review Kaur’s equitable tolling contention because
she failed to exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s October 4, 2006, and April 25,
2008, orders because Kaur did not timely petition for review of those decisions.
See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --