Case Name: Gurjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 225 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 05-73278
Parties: Gurjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 524–524

Head Matter:
Gurjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73278.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 15, 2007.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James R. Macayeal, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section, Thankful T. Vanders-tar, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gurjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider and to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA's June 28, 2002 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) and (c)(2).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.