Alfonso Escamilla-Reyes 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALFONSO ESCAMILLA-REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70297
Agency No. A073-874-753
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Escamilla-Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 for abuse of
FILED
JUN 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70297 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894
(9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Escamilla-Reyes’ motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the
BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Escamilla-Reyes failed to
establish due diligence during the interval between the alleged ineffective
assistance and the filing of the motion to reopen, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d
1090, 1095-97 (9th Cir. 2007). Escamilla-Reyes’ contentions that the BIA failed
to apply the proper standard of review to assess whether he established due
diligence and that the BIA failed to set forth an adequate rationale for its decision
are not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to review Escamilla-Reyes’ contention that the BIA
should have invoked its sua sponte authority to reopen his proceedings. See
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --