Case ID: f-appx_285/html/0509-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Egma Moses KANHUKAMWE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70561.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2008.
    
    Filed July 28, 2008.
    Judith L. Wood, Law Offices of Judith L. Wood, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Oil, Aviva L. Poczter, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen immigration proceedings.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen because the motion to reopen was untimely, and petitioner did not allege that her motion met any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).

Moreover, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to decline to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen petitioner’s case. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for dismissal in part and summary disposition in part 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). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. We note the stay of removal in petition no. 05-72970 continues until further order of the court.

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.