Case Name: Gerardo Grajeda SANTANA; Martha Anjelica Grajeda, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 226 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 05-71576
Parties: Gerardo Grajeda SANTANA; Martha Anjelica Grajeda, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 226
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Gerardo Grajeda SANTANA; Martha Anjelica Grajeda, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71576.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
Gerardo Grajeda Santana, Dinuba, CA, pro se.
Martha Anjelica Grajeda, Dinuba, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., 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, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gerardo Grajeda Santana and Martha Angelica Grajeda, husband and wife, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion, Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Santana's motion as untimely because he did not file it within 90 days of the BIA's final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.