Ortiz v. Mukasey
This text of 272 F. App'x 553 (Ortiz v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Artemio Urbina Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We review for abuse of discretion. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioner failed timely to file his motion or provide additional evidence to support an exception to the 90-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
As to petitioner’s request for sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening of petitioner’s ease. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
272 F. App'x 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.