Raul Reynaldo Rivera Rivas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAUL REYNALDO RIVERA RIVAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74436
Agency No. A070-639-224
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Raul Reynaldo Rivera Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third
motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
SEP 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74436 2
motion to reopen. Ituribarria 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 Rivera Rivas’ third motion
to reopen time- and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Rivera Rivas
filed this motion three years after receiving the denial of his previous motion, and
did not demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable
tolling. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
To the extent Rivera Rivas seeks review of the BIA’s 1999 determination
that he received proper notice of his July 1997, hearing, we lack jurisdiction
because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --