Jose Juarez-Contreras 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE JUAREZ-CONTRERAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71517
Agency No. A092-455-767
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Juarez-Contreras, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
law and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
FILED
MAR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71517 2
Iturribarria 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 Juarez-Contreras’ motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed over three years after the final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Juarez-Contreras did not establish he
acted with due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491
F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Juarez-Contreras’ contentions regarding the
BIA’s October 7, 2003, order denying his appeal of the immigration judge’s
decision, 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 --