Jose Ayala Maciel 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE AYALA MACIEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72807
Agency No. A075-739-629
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ayala Maciel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72807 2
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 Ayala Maciel’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final
order of removal and Ayala Maciel failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any
exceptions to the 90-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) (listing exceptions to the time limitation).
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 --