Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arsen ARUTUNYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73930.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 23, 2007.
    
    Filed July 27, 2007.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esq., Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Brooke M. Maurer, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) did not abuse its discretion when it denied as untimely petitioner’s motion to reopen. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

Additionally, to the extent that petitioner seeks review of the BIA’s discretionary decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen petitioner’s case, respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted. This court does not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1154 (9th Cir.2002).

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.