Case Name: Manuel MOTA-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-04
Citations: 293 F. App'x 461
Docket Number: No. 07-71558
Parties: Manuel MOTA-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 293
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
Manuel MOTA-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71558.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 4, 2008.
Manuel Mota-Gonzalez, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
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, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Mota-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA's order denying his motion to reopen by failing to raise any arguments related to the BIA's dispositive determination that the motion to reopen was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's decision not to exercise 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.