Celia Rodriguez v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELIA RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74740
Agency No. A075-738-807
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Celia Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
APR 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74740 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s second motion
to reopen as time and number barred where it was submitted more than two years
after the November 19, 2004, final administrative decision. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2).
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).
Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --