Case Name: Guadalupe BELTRAN-CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 06-75077
Parties: Guadalupe BELTRAN-CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
Guadalupe BELTRAN-CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Guadalupe Beltran-Carrillo, Norwalk, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Kristin K. Edison, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This 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 petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely petitioner's motion to reopen filed more than 19 months after the BIA's final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating time limits for filing motions to reopen); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review whether the BIA should have sua sponte granted petitioner's motion to reopen despite its untimeliness because "the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion." See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,1159 (9th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition in part and to dismiss in part this petition for review is granted.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) 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.