Marco Antonio Romero- Romero 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO ROMERO-
ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70415
Agency No. A042-326-903
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER,
Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Romero-Romero seeks review of an order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his untimely motion to reopen removal
proceedings. The BIA declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen under
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
FILED
JAN 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Romero argues that the BIA erred by placing the burden on him to establish
the reasons why the state court vacated his attempted rape conviction. However,
his reliance on Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2006), is misplaced
because that case did not involve an untimely motion or the BIA’s sua sponte
authority under § 1003.2(a).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision whether to
exercise its sua sponte authority under § 1003.2(a). See, e.g., Mejia-Hernandez v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153,
1159-60 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we dismiss Romero’s petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --