Case Name: Fidel CORREA-FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-15
Citations: 296 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 08-72671
Parties: Fidel CORREA-FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 296
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Fidel CORREA-FLORES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72671.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 6, 2008.
Filed Oct. 15, 2008.
Fidel Correa-Flores, Cathedral City, CA, pro se.
Patrick James Glen, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, 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 petitioners' 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). Because petitioners' motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' untimely motion to reopen. See id.
Accordingly, this petition for review is summarily denied 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) (stating standard).
As to petitioners' request for sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening of petitioners' case. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). We therefore grant respondent's motion to dismiss this petition in part.
All other pending motions are 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.