Case Name: Santiago Angel CANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-05
Citations: 431 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 06-71161
Parties: Santiago Angel CANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
Santiago Angel CANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71161.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2011.
Filed May 5, 2011.
Santiago Angel Cano, Covina, CA, pro se.
Anthony F. Geraci, Esq., Irvine, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Virginia Lum Fax, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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
Santiago Angel Cano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his 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), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Angel Cano's motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(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); see also Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir.2011) ("No significant changes have occurred since Ekimian that would allow this panel to find a sufficiently meaningful standard, and allow us to review sua sponte reopening.").
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.