Sylvia L. Robles v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA L. ROBLES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75035
Agency No. A070-642-521
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Sylvia L. Robles, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Robles’ motion to reopen
on the ground that it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b), and Robles failed to
establish that she was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679-80; Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2011).
We lack jurisdiction over Robles’ contention that the IJ failed to advise her
of the consequences of overstaying her voluntary departure period because Robles
failed to exhaust this claim before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not
presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Robles’ remaining contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
08-75035 2

-- 2 of 2 --