Salvador Uribe-Espinosa 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SALVADOR URIBE-ESPINOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72993
Agency No. A095-294-778
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Uribe–Espinosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings and to reconsider its prior order. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72993 2
reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Uribe–Espinosa’s motion as
untimely because it was filed nearly three years after the BIA’s May 3, 2005, final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within
90 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the entry of a
final administrative order of removal), and Uribe–Espinosa does not contend he is
entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.
2003) (deadline can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing
because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due
diligence”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --