Kumar Sant 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KUMAR SANT,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-70766
07-72497
Agency No. A072-117-464
MEMORANDUM
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Kumar Sant, a native and citizen
of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders
denying his motions to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-70766
Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo claims of
due process violations in immigration proceedings, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d
967, 971 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part petition No. 07-
70766 and we deny petition No. 07-72497.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sant’s motions to reconsider
because they were filed more than two years after the BIA’s October 1, 2002, order
summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the BIA within
30 days after the mailing of the decision), and Sant failed to establish grounds for
equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)
(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”).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159
(9th Cir. 2002).
We decline to reconsider Sant’s challenge to the IJ’s underlying adverse
credibility determination because this court already decided the issue in Sant v.
Ashcroft, No. 02-73433 (9th Cir. July 15, 2004). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d
1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the “law of the case doctrine,”

-- 2 of 3 --

07-70766 3
one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel
has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
Finally, Sant’s due process claims fail because proceedings were not “so
fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.”
Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971.
No. 07-70766: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
No. 07-72497: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --