Minton Lal Joshi 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).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MINTON LAL JOSHI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72065
Agency No. A078-364-900
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Minton Lal Joshi, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 07-72065 2
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lara-Torres v.
Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Joshi’s third motion to
reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the motion was filed more than
two years after the BIA’s final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
This court lacks jurisdiction over Joshi’s contention that the filing deadline
should have been equitably tolled because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction
to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --