Case Name: Reyna Cecilia LONGORIA DE ARREDONDO; et al., 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 466
Docket Number: No. 05-77415
Parties: Reyna Cecilia LONGORIA DE ARREDONDO; et al., Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 466–467

Head Matter:
Reyna Cecilia LONGORIA DE ARREDONDO; et al., Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77415.
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, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Hillel R. Smith, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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
Reyna Cecilia Longoria de Arredondo and her husband, Eladio ArredondoAguirre, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
Petitioners concede that their motion to reopen was untimely and number barred and contend that the BIA should have reopened their 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 DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.