Case Name: Daniel Navarro JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-27
Citations: 235 F. App'x 520
Docket Number: No. 07-70620
Parties: Daniel Navarro JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Daniel Navarro JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70620.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 23, 2007.
Filed July 27, 2007.
Daniel Navarro Jimenez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-District, 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, Manuel A. Palau, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and WARDLAW, 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 of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reopen.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss in part is granted.
Respondent's motion for summary disposition in part is granted because the remaining questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
The regulations provide, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, that a motion to reopen "must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened." See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's untimely motion to reopen. See id.
The motion for stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).
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 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.