Case Name: Arthur Shavarsh MKRTUMYAM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 302 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 06-73640
Parties: Arthur Shavarsh MKRTUMYAM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
Arthur Shavarsh MKRTUMYAM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73640.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Arthur Shavarsh Mkrtumyam, Glendale, CA, pro se.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Melissa Leibman, Esquire, Virginia Lum, OIL, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arthur Shavarsh Mkrtumyam, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Ap peals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We determine our jurisdiction de novo. Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss the petition for review.
Mkrtumyam concedes that his motion to reopen removal proceedings was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) because it was filed more than ninety days after the BIA's decision on December 10, 2003. He contends, however, that the BIA should have reopened his case sua sponte in light of the newly discovered evidence submitted with the motion. We lack jurisdiction to evaluate Mkrtumyam's contention that the BIA should have reopened his case sua sponte. See Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.