Lakhwinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
This text of 444 F. App'x 196 (Lakhwinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petar Donchev Bakalov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 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 reopen. Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bakalov’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed five years after the final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bakalov failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.
To the extent that Bakalov challenges the BIA’s December 22, 2005, order, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
We need not consider Bakalov’s remaining contentions in light of our disposition.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
444 F. App'x 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakhwinder-singh-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.