Case Name: Fernando ORTIZ-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-10
Citations: 585 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 11-73365
Parties: Fernando ORTIZ-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 406–407

Head Matter:
Fernando ORTIZ-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73365.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 6, 2014.
Filed Oct. 10, 2014.
Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Fernando Ortiz-Romero ("Romero") petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that denied his second motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition.
After considering Romero's second motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) for sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedings, the BIA held that it did not have jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d).
Alternatively, the BIA stated that even if jurisdiction were proper, it would not reopen Romero's proceedings under its § 1003.2(a) sua sponte discretion.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's unfettered § 1003.2(a) discretion not to reopen removal proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); see also Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir.2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.