Court Opinion

ID: 151981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-07-31 00:02:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:26.689377
License: Public Domain

FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           JUL 30 2010

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERESA CORNEJO ARTEGA; et al.,                   No. 08-71625

               Petitioners,                      Agency Nos. A096-049-442
                                                             A096-049-443
  v.                                                         A096-049-444

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted July 19, 2010 **

Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

       Teresa Cornejo Artega and her family, natives and citizens of Mexico,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 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 petitioners’ motion to

reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order of

removal, and petitioners failed to demonstrate that they qualified for an exception

to the 90-day time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).

      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.

                                           2                                    08-71625