Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a.k.a. Troy Urie, a.k.a. Troy Mudiaga Urie, a.k.a. Mydiaga Urig v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUDIAGA OBIJURU URIE, a.k.a. Troy
Urie, a.k.a. Troy Mudiaga Urie, a.k.a.
Mydiaga Urig,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 12-73672
Nos. 13-70209
Agency No. A098-409-078
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a native
and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. We have
FILED
MAR 13 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reopen as
untimely where he filed his motion more than four years after his final removal
order, and he did not establish that his motion was subject to equitable tolling to
delay the filing deadline for the sole purpose of allowing his visa petition to
become current. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001)
(en banc) (equitable tolling available where petitioner is unable to obtain vital
information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond
petitioner’s control). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Urie’s motion to reconsider because he failed to establish any error in its prior
order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1180 n.2.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73672, 13-70209 2

-- 2 of 2 --