Ahir v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Ahir v. Gonzales

146 F. App'x 227

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2005

DocketNo. 04-74367; Agency No. A72-670-049

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. App'x 227 (Ahir v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ahir v. Gonzales, 146 F. App'x 227 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Amarjit Singh Ahir, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not review the BIA’s determination that Ahir’s motion to reopen was not timely filed, because Ahir concedes in his opening brief that he filed his motion to reopen late. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

We do not consider Ahir’s contention that he presented new and previously unavailable evidence, because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen regardless of timeliness. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Amarjit Singh Ahir, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not review the BIA’s determination that Ahir’s motion to reopen was not timely filed, because Ahir concedes in his opening brief that he filed his motion to reopen late. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

We do not consider Ahir’s contention that he presented new and previously unavailable evidence, because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen regardless of timeliness. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F. App'x 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahir-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack