Lopez-Urenda

MEMORANDUM ***

Javier Lopez-Urenda (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of an order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. We deny the petition.

Petitioner’s motion to reopen was denied on the grounds that (1) the motion to reopen was untimely; and (2) Petitioner was barred from applying for adjustment of status because he had remained in the United States after the scheduled date of departure. Petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed more than 90 days after the entry of the final order of removal. Therefore, the BIA did not err in denying the motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2).

We lack jurisdiction to review claims that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a). Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). Petitioner argues that he does not challenge the BIA’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte power, but, rather, its failure to consider Petitioner’s request for such relief and its failure to address the request in its decision. However, if the BIA were to reopen in response to a motion, the BIA would not be acting sua sponte. Ordinarily, the BIA is not required to announce when and why it…