Case Name: Maria Carmen CORONEL-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-18
Citations: 472 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 07-71946
Parties: Maria Carmen CORONEL-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 660–660

Head Matter:
Maria Carmen CORONEL-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71946.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 18, 2012.
Kevin Aan Bove, Esquire, Kevin A. Bove, Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner. Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Kurt Barrett Larson, Senior Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Maria Carmen Coronel-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, as untimely and numerically — barred, her second motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
Coronel-Diaz argues that the BIA should have sua sponte reopened removal proceedings, and should have excused her untimely and numerically-barred motion to reopen.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision whether to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen under § 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we dismiss CoronelDiaz's petition for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.