Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0667-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Irma Consuelo BARCO-GUERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71736.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed July 30, 2010.
    Irma Consuelo Barco-Guerra, pro se.
    Aric Allan Anderson, Trial, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Irma Consuelo Barco-Guerra, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturri-barria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barco-Guerra’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over ten years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Barco-Guerra failed to demonstrate eligibility for any of the regulatory exceptions to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). Because the untimeliness determination is dispositive, we do not reach Barco-Guerra’s remaining contentions.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See 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.