Court Opinion

ID: 8459702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-05 05:55:10.33509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:07.650616
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
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). Petitioners’ final orders of removal were entered on November 29, 2007. Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed on July 7, 2008, beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to reopen as untimely. See id.
Accordingly, we summarily deny this petition for review in because the questions raised 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).
To the extent petitioners’ challenge the BIA’s decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to review this portion of the order. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), 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.