Gura Singh Dhillon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GURA SINGH DHILLON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70079
Agency No. A077-157-610
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Gura Singh Dhillon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70079 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dhillon’s motion to
reconsider as untimely, where it was filed over two years after the BIA’s final
administrative decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of its sua sponte authority
to deny Dhillon’s motion to reconsider based on his due process argument. See
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --