Case Name: Maria Dolores REYNOSO-CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-16
Citations: 504 F. App'x 602
Docket Number: No. 08-70766
Parties: Maria Dolores REYNOSO-CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 504
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
Maria Dolores REYNOSO-CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70766.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2012.
Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, Gary J. Newkirk, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings following a remand for consideration on the merits by this Court. See Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.2007). "[W]e do not have jurisdiction to review [the] claim that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power" to grant Reynoso-Cisnero's motion to reopen. Ekimian v. INS, 803 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). "[B]ecause the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion," we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir.1999)) (emphasis omitted).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.