Guardado

Guardado v. Holder

Good Law
317 F. App'x 708
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 9, 2009No. 08-73758California256 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008). An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings within 90 days after the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2). Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not contended an exception applies to this time limit, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen. See id. Accordingly, 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 *709 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

To the extent petitioners claim the agency erred by denying sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.