22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T41c,MEMORANDUM Fernando Ortiz-Romero (“Romero”) petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied his second motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss the petition. After considering Romero’s second motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a) for sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedings, the BIA held that it did not have jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (d). Alternatively, the BIA stated that even if jurisdiction were proper, it would not reopen Romero’s proceedings under its § 1003.2(a) sua sponte discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s unfettered § 1003.2(a) discretion not to reopen removal proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); see also Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir.2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T453,

MEMORANDUM

Fernando Ortiz-Romero (“Romero”) petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied his second motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss the petition.

After considering Romero’s second motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a) for sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedings, the BIA held that it did not have jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (d).

Alternatively, the BIA stated that even if jurisdiction were proper, it would not reopen Romero’s proceedings under its § 1003.2(a) sua sponte discretion.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s unfettered § 1003.2(a) discretion not to reopen removal proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); see also Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.