Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0763-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Javier Samuel BARCENAS-ROJAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75658.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 7, 2007 .
    Filed May 14, 2007.
    Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This 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”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings.

The regulations provide that a party “may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings ... and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen, filed nearly three years after the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s appeal. See id.; Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for 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).

Further, to the extent this petition for review challenges the BIA’s refusal to exercise its authority to reopen sua sponte, this court lacks jurisdiction over such a decision. See Ekimian v. I.N.S., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

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.