Popoca

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 949 (9th Cir.2008) (“the pendency of a petition for review of an order of removal does not toll the statutory time limit for the filing of a motion to reopen with the BIA.”); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (standard *989 of review). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied in part.

Additionally, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision regarding whether to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 308 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is dismissed in part.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The…

dissenting:

I dissent. This is but one of a multitude of similar sad cases by which our government’s deportation of undocumented parents results in the deportation of their American-born citizen children, and effectively denies those children their birthrights. See Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, 809 F.2d 1419, 1426-27 (9th Cir.1987) (Requiring the government to conduct individualized analyses of hardships to U.S. citizen children). Our government’s conduct forces U.S. citizen children to accept de facto expulsion from their native land or give up their constitutionally protected right to remain with their parents. See, e.g., Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503-05 , 97 S.Ct. 1932 , 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) (plurality opinion) (“Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (recognizing that “[t]he integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”).

To make matters worse, our Byzantine immigration laws and…