Case Name: Jagraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-10
Citations: 259 F. App'x 34
Docket Number: No. 06-71473
Parties: Jagraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 259
Pages: 34–34

Head Matter:
Jagraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71473.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
Filed Dec. 10, 2007.
Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Sarah Maloney, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jagraj Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, 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 as untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after the BIA's April 28, 2004 order. 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).
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.