Case Name: Jose Ayala MACIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-09
Citations: 382 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 07-72807
Parties: Jose Ayala MACIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
Jose Ayala MACIEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72807.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 9, 2010.
Jose Ayala Maciel, pro se.
OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Jose Ayala Maciel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala Maciel's motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final order of removal and Ayala Maciel failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exceptions to the 90-day time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final administrative order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (listing exceptions to the time limitation).
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; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.