Case Name: YINGYING LOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-17
Citations: 331 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 07-71343
Parties: YINGYING LOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
YINGYING LOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71343.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
Filed Aug. 17, 2009.
Michael Conlan, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Benjamin J. Zeitlin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yingying Lou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir.2009). We therefore dismiss Lou's claim regarding the BIA's sua sponte authority.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lou's motion to reopen because it was untimely and Lou did not demonstrate that a regulatory exception applies, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3), or that equitable tolling applies, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003). We therefore deny Lou's claim regarding the BIA's timeliness decision.
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.