Case Name: Rafael Martinez RODRIGUEZ, also known as Rafael Martinez, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-28
Citations: 583 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 13-60625
Parties: Rafael Martinez RODRIGUEZ, also known as Rafael Martinez, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 375–375

Head Matter:
Rafael Martinez RODRIGUEZ, also known as Rafael Martinez, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-60625
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 28, 2014.
Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Gonzalez Olivieri, L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Scott Michael Marconda, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Martinez Rodriguez (Martinez), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of both the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and his motion to reconsider that denial. He does not challenge the BIA's holding that his motion to reopen was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) but, rather, argues only that the BIA abused its discretion by holding that (1) the departure bar set forth in § 1003.2(d) prevented it from exercising its sua sponte authority to reopen and (2) even if the departure bar did not apply, sua sponte reopening pursuant to § 1003.2(a) was not warranted.
Contrary to Martinez's assertions, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the BIA's decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir.2008). As Martinez's motion to reopen was time barred, we need not address his arguments regarding the BIA's application of the departure bar. See id. His petitions for review are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.