Marcos Flores Lopez; Flora Nelia Flores; 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCOS FLORES LOPEZ; FLORA
NELIA FLORES; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73670
Agency Nos. A095-292-744
A095-292-745
A095-292-746
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marcos Flores Lopez, his wife, Flora Nelia Flores, and their son, Erick
Alexander Flores Medjia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen.
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-73670 2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 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 as untimely 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 any
exceptions to the ninety-day time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion
to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final administrative order of
removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’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 --