Rene Manzanares Salvador v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the***
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE MANZANARES SALVADOR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72126
Agency No. A079-523-009
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 4, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, ***
District Judge.
Rene Manzanares Salvador, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
FILED
MAY 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of
discretion, 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 Manzanares Salvador’s
motion to reopen, because the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s
January 31, 2005, order dismissing his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(2) (motions to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of the
administrative decision), and Manzanares Salvador failed to establish grounds for
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available
“when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as
long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).
To the extent Manzanares Salvador challenges the BIA’s January 31, 2005,
order dismissing his underlying appeal, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is
not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --