Irma Consuelo Barco-Guerra 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IRMA CONSUELO BARCO-GUERRA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71736
Agency No. A072-776-445
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.
Irma Consuelo Barco-Guerra, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her
motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
FILED
JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71736 2
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barco-Guerra’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed over ten years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Barco-Guerra failed to demonstrate eligibility for
any of the regulatory exceptions to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). Because the untimeliness determination is dispositive, we
do not reach Barco-Guerra’s remaining contentions.
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 --