Maria Dolores Reynoso- Cisneros 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).
*** The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Southern California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DOLORES REYNOSO-
CISNEROS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70766
Agency No. A092-554-471
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 5, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ,
District Judge. ***
FILED
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen immigration
proceedings following a remand for consideration on the merits by this Court. See
Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2007). “[W]e do not have
jurisdiction to review [the] claim that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte
power” to grant Reynoso-Cisnero’s motion to reopen. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d
1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). “[B]ecause the decision of the BIA whether to invoke
its sua sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion,” we dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir. 1999))
(emphasis omitted).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --