Dhillon v. Holder

389 F. App'x 732
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dhillon v. Holder. Read the opinion of the Court — 485 F. App'x 252
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 29, 2010·No. 08-70079·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

Dhillon v. Holder, 389 F. App'x 732 (9th Cir. 2010).

389 F. App'x 732 (Dhillon v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related