FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE CORTES MACEDO; YESENIA No. 09-70838
OROZCO DE LA PAZ,
Agency Nos. A096-064-388
Petitioners, A096-064-389
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Cortes Macedo and Yesenia Orozco De La Paz, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying their 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.
*
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).
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than a year after the final
administrative order was entered in their case. 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). If we had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision,
we would find no abuse of discretion.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ request to
withdraw from their grant of voluntary departure on grounds that petitioners failed
to demonstrate that they filed their motion prior to the expiration of their voluntary
departure period. See Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 21 (2008) (alien must be
permitted to withdraw a voluntary departure request before expiration of the
departure period).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-70838