Case ID: f-appx_687/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sussan NG and Lin Xie, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73000
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 18, 2017
    Sussan Ng, Pro Se
    Lin Xie, Pro Se
    Joseph Anthony O’Connell, 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: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sussan Ng and Lin Xie, natives of China and citizens of Australia, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed more than six years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they have not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to their underlying proceedings, the BIA’s 2007 dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s finding of removability, and the BIA’s 2008 denial of their motion to reconsider and 2012 denial of their first motion to reopen, because this petition is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

To the extent petitioners seek prosecu-torial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to consider such a request. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.