Granados Elisea v. Holder

381 F. App'x 695

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Resham Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s September 17, 2004, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to establish the late filing was due to deception, fraud or error of former counsel to warrant equitable tolling, see Iturribania, 321 F.3d at 897.

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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.