Case Name: Lidia VIDANA DE GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-01
Citations: 209 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 06-72679
Parties: Lidia VIDANA DE GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
Lidia VIDANA DE GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72679.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 27, 2006.
Filed Dec. 1, 2006.
Lidia Vidana De Garcia, Panorama City, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review from the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioner's motion to reopen filed more than 39 months after the BIA's final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of BIA order); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review whether the BIA should have sua sponte granted petitioner's motion to reopen despite its untimeliness because "the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion." See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition in part and to dismiss in part this petition for review is granted.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.