Case Name: Marcos Flores LOPEZ; Flora Nelia Flores; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-23
Citations: 367 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 07-73670
Parties: Marcos Flores LOPEZ; Flora Nelia Flores; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
Marcos Flores LOPEZ; Flora Nelia Flores; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73670.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, for Petitioners.
John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marcos Flores Lopez, his wife, Flora Nelia Flores, and their son, Erick Alexan der Flores Medjia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition 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, 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 in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final order of removal and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they qualified for any exceptions to the ninety-day time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency'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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.