Opinion
No. 07-72795.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 19, 2007.
Maria Cruz Torres Rueda, Perris, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., Patrick J. Glen, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A75-481-726.
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.
This is a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings.
A motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years late.
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 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
To the extent petitioner seeks to challenge the BIA's refusal to use its discretionary authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that determination. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.