Case Name: THAI HOUG, aka Thai Houng, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-24
Citations: 329 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 07-74460
Parties: THAI HOUG, aka Thai Houng, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 758–758

Head Matter:
THAI HOUG, aka Thai Houng, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74460.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2009.
Filed July 24, 2009.
David C. Paquin, Esquire, Ocean View Law Group, Torrance, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thai Houg, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). Houg's due process contentions are not colorable. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
Houg's contention that the BIA should have assigned his appeal to a three-judge panel is unavailing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Houg's remaining contention that the IJ deemed his motion timely.
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.