Teresa Cornejo Artega; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TERESA CORNEJO ARTEGA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71625
Agency Nos. A096-049-442
A096-049-443
A096-049-444
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71625 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 of 2 --