Opinion ID: 2750987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The denial of a motion to reopen is a final administrative decision subject to our judicial review. See Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2012). Our jurisdiction arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Meza-Vallejos v. Holder, 669 F.3d 920, 923 (9th Cir. 2012). We held in Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002), that we lack jurisdiction to review a BIA decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a), now 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See also Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 2011); Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir. 2009); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 993 n.8 (9th Cir. 2008); Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002). That jurisdictional bar, however, rests on the absence of a judicially manageable standard for us to evaluate the BIA’s exercise of discretion in ruling on a motion to reopen. See Ekimian, 303 F.3d at 1159. Where, as here, the BIA concludes that it lacks the authority 1 DHS possesses the authority to grant a stay of removal under 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.6(a) and 1241.6(a), although Singh asserts that DHS’s denial of a stay is not subject to judicial review. SINGH V. HOLDER 7 to reopen, rather than denying a motion to reopen as an exercise of discretion, we hold that Ekimian does not preclude our jurisdiction.2