Case Name: Hayad Ahmed GUURE; Salma Ciise Liban; Yahia Ciise Liban; Zubeer Ciise Liban, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-08
Citations: 326 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 08-1046
Parties: Hayad Ahmed GUURE; Salma Ciise Liban; Yahia Ciise Liban; Zubeer Ciise Liban, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
Hayad Ahmed GUURE; Salma Ciise Liban; Yahia Ciise Liban; Zubeer Ciise Liban, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 08-1046.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 4, 2009.
Filed: June 8, 2009.
Valerie Curtis-Diop, A.D.I.L.A. Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Paul Fiorino, Andrew Oliveira, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, for Respondent.
Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
. Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Hayad Ahmed Guure and her children petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. In particular, petitioners challenge the BIA's refusal to reopen sua sponte the removal proceedings, so that petitioners could reapply for asylum on the basis of female genital mutilation. We lack jurisdiction, however, to review a BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. See Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1001, 1004-05 (8th Cir.2008) (en banc) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
. To the extent petitioners intended to challenge the remainder of the BIA's decision denying the motion to reopen, we agree with the BIA that the motion was untimely, and petitioners failed to show they met any exception to the time limitation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (time limitation); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (exceptions); Ghasemimehr v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying untimely motion to reopen).