Salazar v. Holder
This text of 314 F. App'x 959 (Salazar v. Holder) 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
Maria Rosa Elena Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, 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 by denying Salazar’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA’s April 19, 2002 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motions to reopen generally must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision).
We lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Salazar’s application for suspension of deportation because this petition for review is not timely as to the BIA’s order summarily [960]*960affirming the IJ’s order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
314 F. App'x 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salazar-v-holder-ca9-2009.