Hayad Guure, etc. v. Michael Mukasey

326 F. App'x 405
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided June 8, 2009·No. 08-1046·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

2

. 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

Hayad Guure, etc. v. Michael Mukasey, 326 F. App'x 405 (8th Cir. 2009).

326 F. App'x 405 (Hayad Guure, etc. v. Michael Mukasey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tamenut v. Mukasey
521 F.3d 1000 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)