Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0722-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sandra Lourdes ROMAN-ANGUIANO, a.k.a. Sandra L. Roman, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71827.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 15, 2011.
    Sandra Lourdes Roman-Anguiano, Ontario, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sandra Lourdes Roman-Anguiano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Roman-Anguiano’s second motion to reopen, which was filed over 90 days after the BIA’s final order, as untimely and number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). To the extent that Roman-Anguiano challenges the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), we lack jurisdiction to review such a challenge. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir.2002). If we had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision, we would find no abuse of discretion.

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.