Case ID: f-appx_371/html/0844-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Romero RODRIGUEZ; Antonia Cordova Romero, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 25, 2010.
    Christopher J. Stender, Stender & Pope, PC, San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jason S. Patil, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Romero Rodriguez and Antonia Cordova Romero, husband and wife and natives and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal 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 acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion as untimely because it was filed almost two years after the BIA’s final removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision was rendered).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen petitioners’ case, and we not persuaded by petitioners’ attempts to circumvent this jurisdictional bar. See Ek-imian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that “the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion”) (italics and internal citations omitted).

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