Case Name: Hilario LLAMAS-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-27
Citations: 297 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 05-74964
Parties: Hilario LLAMAS-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 662–662

Head Matter:
Hilario LLAMAS-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74964.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2008.
Filed Oct. 27, 2008.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, John D. Williams, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hilario Llamas-Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The BIA determined Llamas-Valdez's motion to reopen was untimely, because it was filed more than two years after the BIA's October 29, 2002 final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to decide whether the BIA improperly declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
Llamas-Valdez's contention that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(3)(c)(iii) violates the separation of powers doctrine is not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.