Opinion
No. 05-73396.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 1, 2007.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kelly J. Walls, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A70-939-165.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gurdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and reconsider its prior order affirming an immigration judge's order of removal. 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 acted within its discretion in denying Singh's motion as untimely because it was filed over two years after the BIA's final removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the entry of a final administrative order of removal).
We lack jurisdiction to review Singh's equitable tolling contention because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ash-croft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).