Case Name: Satbir Singh RANDHAWA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 235 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 05-74717
Parties: Satbir Singh RANDHAWA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
Satbir Singh RANDHAWA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74717.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 2007.
See also, 61 Fed.Appx 359.
Martin A. Robles, Esq., Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Satbir Singh Randhawa seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
Randhawa concedes that his motion to reopen was untimely and number barred and contends that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings sua sponte to correct a miscarriage of justice. 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) (noting that "the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.