Hayad Guure, etc. v. Michael Mukasey
This text of 326 F. App'x 405 (Hayad Guure, etc. v. Michael Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Hayad Ahmed Guure and her children petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. In particular, petitioners challenge the BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte the removal proceedings, so that petitioners could reapply for asylum on the basis of female genital mutilation. We lack jurisdiction, however, to review a BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. See Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1001, 1004-05 (8th Cir.2008) (en banc) (per curiam). 2
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
. To the extent petitioners intended to challenge the remainder of the BIA’s decision denying the motion to reopen, we agree with the BIA that the motion was untimely, and petitioners failed to show they met any exception to the time limitation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (time limitation); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (exceptions); Ghasemimehr v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying untimely motion to reopen).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
326 F. App'x 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayad-guure-etc-v-michael-mukasey-ca8-2009.