Case Name: JUNG SOOK KIM, a.k.a. Jung Sook Rhee; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-28
Citations: 311 F. App'x 27
Docket Number: No. 08-73634
Parties: JUNG SOOK KIM, a.k.a. Jung Sook Rhee; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 311
Pages: 27–28

Head Matter:
JUNG SOOK KIM, a.k.a. Jung Sook Rhee; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73634.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2009.
Filed Jan. 28, 2009.
Jung Sook Kim, La Crescenta, CA, pro se.
Hyun Woo Kim, La Crescenta, CA, pro se.
Hyun Jung Kim, La Crescenta, CA, pro se.
Nicole N. Murley, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We review the BIA's ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).
An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioners' motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not established that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' untimely motion to reopen. See id.
Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are- so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
In addition, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed in part.
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
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.