Singh
Singh v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
In these consolidated petitions, Prithvi Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to reopen to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture (03-72541) and the BIA’s order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel (05- *730 70225). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), we dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s October 18, 2002 decision denying as untimely Singh’s motion to reopen to apply for protection under the CAT because the motion was due on or before June 21,1999, and Singh did not file her motion with the Immigration Court until August 12, 2002. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18 (b)(2). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s claim that the IJ should have exercised sua sponte authority to reopen the removal proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).