Case Name: Amarjit Singh AHIR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-19
Citations: 146 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 04-74367; Agency No. A72-670-049
Parties: Amarjit Singh AHIR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HALL, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
Amarjit Singh AHIR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74367.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo A., Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HALL, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Amarjit Singh Ahir, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We do not review the BIA's determination that Ahir's motion to reopen was not timely filed, because Ahir concedes in his opening brief that he filed his motion to reopen late. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).
We do not consider Ahir's contention that he presented new and previously unavailable evidence, because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen regardless of timeliness. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.