Artur Lako; 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARTUR LAKO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-71850
09-73294
Agency Nos. A074-817-827
A074-817-828
A074-817-829
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Artur Lako and his family, natives
and citizens of Albania, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders denying their motions to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-71850 2
and de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review in No. 06-71850, and we dismiss the
petition for review in No. 09-73294.
With respect to 06-71850, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
petitioners’ second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where the
successive motion was filed almost three years after the agency’s denial of
petitioners’ first motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did
not demonstrate the evidence submitted was previously unavailable, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(1); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738-39 (9th Cir. 2007). It follows
that petitioners’ due process claims fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
With respect to No. 09-73294, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s
decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian
v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
No. 06-71850: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 09-73294: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --