Angel Cano v. Holder , 431 F. App'x 554 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 05 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SANTIAGO ANGEL CANO,                             No. 06-71161
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A095-310-911
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted April 20, 2011 **
    Before:        RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Santiago Angel Cano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
    reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of
    discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 785
    ,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    791–92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
    review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Angel Cano’s motion to
    reopen as untimely. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review
    the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings
    under 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a). See Ekimian v. INS, 
    303 F.3d 1153
    , 1159 (9th Cir.
    2002); see also Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 
    633 F.3d 818
    , 824 (9th Cir. 2011)
    (“No significant changes have occurred since Ekimian that would allow this panel
    to find a sufficiently meaningful standard, and allow us to review sua sponte
    reopening.”).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                     06-71161
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-71161

Citation Numbers: 431 F. App'x 554

Judges: Rymer, Thomas, Paez

Filed Date: 5/5/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024