Case Name: Zatollah YOUSEFI-TALOURI, a.k.a. Zatollah Yousefi Talouki, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-16
Citations: 303 F. App'x 530
Docket Number: No. 08-72816
Parties: Zatollah YOUSEFI-TALOURI, a.k.a. Zatollah Yousefi Talouki, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 530–531

Head Matter:
Zatollah YOUSEFI-TALOURI, a.k.a. Zatollah Yousefi Talouki, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72816.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
Filed Dec. 16, 2008.
Albert C. Lum, Esquire, Law Office of Albert C. Lum, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Rosanne Perry, Trial, DOJ-TJ.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, NYL-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, De partment of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We review the BIA's ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because it was filed on May 9, 2008, more than 90 days after the February 6, 2004 final order of removal. See id. Accordingly, we deny this petition for review in part because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted.
The motion for a stay of removal pending review is denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
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.