Marco Antonio Bueno-Barajas v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

07-71773Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit24 de mar. de 2010

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

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).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO BUENO-BARAJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71773
Agency No. A092-081-357
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Bueno-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen. Our
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 07-71773 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Bueno-Barajas’ motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than six years after the IJ’s
June 21, 2000, removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). We are not
persuaded by Bueno-Barajas’ contention that the vacatur of his prior conviction
establishes an exception to the 90-day filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4). The untimeliness determination is dispositive of Bueno-Barajas’
remaining contentions.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.