From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 13, 2008
301 F. App'x 619 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 08-72741.

Submitted November 3, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed November 13, 2008.

Javier Aviles Lopez, pro se.

Irma Juarez Ramirez, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A075-754-261, A078-112-251.

Before: TROTT, GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

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


Petitioners' motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioners' 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, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of 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 that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' untimely motion to reopen. See id.

In addition, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, respondent's unopposed 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).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Lopez v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 13, 2008
301 F. App'x 619 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Lopez v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:Javier Aviles LOPEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 13, 2008

Citations

301 F. App'x 619 (9th Cir. 2008)