Case ID: f-appx_347/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammed Kafiullah KHAN; et. al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74733.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2009.
    William Frick, Esq., Law Office of William Frick, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
    Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esquire, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammed Kafiullah Khan, Feroza Kahn, and their children, natives and citizens of Pakistan, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion to reopen and reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denials of motions to reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen petitioners’ proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the I J’s denial of petitioners’ motion to reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the IJ’s October 29, 2004, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.