Case ID: f-appx_81/html/0156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wanes KAPRELIAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73061.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 10, 2003.
    
    Decided Nov. 13, 2003.
    Henrik Mosesi, Law Office of Henrik Mosesi, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David J. Kline, Hugh G. Mullane, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KOZINSKI, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wanes Kaprelian, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Kaprelian’s motion to apply for adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition for review.

Regarding the BIA’s September 17, 2002 order denying Kaprelian’s motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to review Karpelian’s contention that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen his deportation proceedings. See Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2002).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Kaprelian’s contentions regarding the merits of the BIA’s prior orders denying Kaprelian’s prior motions to reopen because the petition for review is not timely as to any of those orders. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.