Mudiaga Urie v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Mudiaga Urie v. Eric Holder, Jr.

562 F. App'x 573

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2014

Docket12-73672, 13-70209

StatusUnpublished

This text of 562 F. App'x 573 (Mudiaga Urie v. Eric 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.

Bluebook

Mudiaga Urie v. Eric Holder, Jr., 562 F. App'x 573 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed his motion more than four years after his final removal order, and he did not establish that his motion was subject to equitable tolling to delay the filing deadline for the sole purpose of allowing his visa petition to become current. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner’s control). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reconsider because he failed to establish any error in its prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1180 n. 2.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Mudiaga Obijuru Urie, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed his motion more than four years after his final removal order, and he did not establish that his motion was subject to equitable tolling to delay the filing deadline for the sole purpose of allowing his visa petition to become current. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc) (equitable tolling available where petitioner is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of a claim because of circumstances beyond petitioner’s control). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urie’s motion to reconsider because he failed to establish any error in its prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1180 n. 2.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 F. App'x 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mudiaga-urie-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack