The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
06-70067•Luis Romero Rodriguez; Antonia Cordova Romero v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General
06-70067Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 25, 2010
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).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ROMERO RODRIGUEZ;
ANTONIA CORDOVA ROMERO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70067
Agency Nos. A075-475-746
A075-475-750
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Luis Romero Rodriguez and Antonia Cordova Romero, husband and wife
and natives and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
AP/Research 06-70067 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,
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 acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion as
untimely because it was filed almost two years after the BIA’s final removal order.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days
after the final administrative decision was rendered).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen petitioners’ case, and we not persuaded by petitioners’
attempts to circumvent this jurisdictional bar. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,
1159 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “the decision of the BIA whether to invoke its sua
sponte authority is committed to its unfettered discretion”) (italics and internal
citations omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.