Case Name: Martha Ampil KATIGBAK; Peter Urrutia Fernandez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-13
Citations: 387 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 08-70071
Parties: Martha Ampil KATIGBAK; Peter Urrutia Fernandez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Martha Ampil KATIGBAK; Peter Urrutia Fernandez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70071.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 13, 2010.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Oil, Trade Nicole Jones, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martha Ampil Katigbak and Peter Urru-tia Fernandez, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed nearly one year after the BIA's August 14, 2006, order dismissing their underlying appeal, and petitioners failed to demonstrate they qualified for an exception to the filing deadline or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach petitioners' remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.