Case Name: Daniel VILLAMIZAR-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-06
Citations: 209 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 04-76015
Parties: Daniel VILLAMIZAR-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: BEFORE: CANBY, COX, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 738–739

Head Matter:
Daniel VILLAMIZAR-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76015.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 6, 2006.
Stephen Shaiken, Esq., Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Candice Jan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Respondent.
BEFORE: CANBY, COX, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Emmett Ripley Cox, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Villamizar-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We deny Villamizar-Ramirez's claim that the BIA waived untimeliness by issuing a filing receipt for his late motion to reopen. The receipt was a routine acknowledgment that the BIA had received Villamizar-Ramirez's filing, not an adjudication of timeliness. See BIA Practice Manual § 3.1(d)(i).
We dismiss the portion of VillamizarRamirez's appeal arguing that the BIA abused its discretion in declining his motion to reopen proceedings sua sponte. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision "whether to invoke its sua sponte authority" to reopen proceedings, because the decision is committed to the agency's "unfettered discretion." Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
. Petitioner's name is spelled inconsistently in the record, as "Villamiza-Ramirez" in the opinion of the Immigration Judge and as 'Villamizar-Ramirez" in the opinion of the BIA and in the parties' briefs. We adopt the latter spelling, and have corrected the docket accordingly.
. Available at http://www.usdoj.gov /eoir/vll/qaprac manual/apptmtn4.htm.