Case Name: Mangal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 499
Docket Number: Nos. 05-73211, 05-76660
Parties: Mangal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
Mangal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-73211, 05-76660.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 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 Department of Homeland Security, lia C. Deiss, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Claire T. Cormier, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated petitions, Mangal Singh seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his two motions to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review in No. 05-73211 and dismiss the petition for review in No. 05-76660.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's first motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than two years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and Singh has not demonstrated that he qualified for any exception to the ninety-day time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Singh concedes that his second motion to reopen was numerically barred, and contends that the BIA should have reopened his proceedings sua sponte to correct an alleged miscarriage of justice. 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) (noting that "the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED (No. 05-73211).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED (No. 05-76660).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.