Case ID: f-appx_272/html/0553-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Artemio Urbina ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75279.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 24, 2008.
    Artemio Urbina Ortiz, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    CAC-Distriet, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Artemio Urbina Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We review for abuse of discretion. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioner failed timely to file his motion or provide additional evidence to support an exception to the 90-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

As to petitioner’s request for sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening of petitioner’s ease. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (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.