Gomez Medina v. Gonzales

Good Law
233 F. App'x 714
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 25, 2007No. 05-77245California286 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Prospero Gomez Medina, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

On October 4, 2005, Gomez Medina filed a motion to reopen with the BIA pursuant to the settlement agreement in Barahona-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 243 F.Supp.2d 1029 (N.D.Cal.2002). Under the terms of the Barahona- Gomez settlement, the filing deadline for motions to reopen was January 23, 2005. See id. at 1034 . Accordingly, the BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Gomez Medina’s motion to reopen because it was filed approximately eight months after the filing deadline.

We lack jurisdiction to review Gomez Medina’s contention that the BIA should have equitably tolled the filing deadline because he faded to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.