Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-18-2007
Bhoja v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5401
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Bhoja v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 743.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/743
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-5401
JEROS FEROZ BHOJA,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Agency No. A73-186-291
Immigration Judge: Paul W. Schmidt
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 26, 2007
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: July 18, 2007)
OPINION
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Petitioner, Jeros Feroz Bhoja, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his
removal proceedings. Because we lack jurisdiction, we will dismiss the petition.
I.
Bhoja entered the United States in 1994. In July 2002, the BIA affirmed the
Immigration Judge’s ruling that Bhoja was not entitled to asylum or withholding of
removal. Following this ruling, Bhoja moved to reopen and for reconsideration. In
December 2002, the BIA denied that motion. We denied his petition for review on March
5, 2004. See Bhoja v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed. Appx. 348 (3d Cir. 2004).
In September 2005, Bhoja filed a second motion to reopen with the BIA. Bhoja
claimed that he was entitled to adjustment of status pursuant to section 245(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), because of an approved Petition I-
140 filed by his employer. Bhoja requested that the BIA reopen his case sua sponte
pursuant to the authority granted by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
By order dated November 15, 2005, the BIA denied Bhoja’s motion. The BIA
noted that the motion was numerically barred and ruled that, given its “limited
discretionary powers” to reopen proceedings sua sponte, it would not exercise its
discretion to reopen Bhoja’s case. (J.A. 2.)
II.
Bhoja argues that the BIA abused its discretion in refusing to exercise its sua
sponte power to reopen his case. According to Bhoja, because he would be entitled to
relief, his case presents the “exceptional situation” in which the BIA may exercise its sua
sponte powers. See In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976 (BIA 1997); see also 8 C.F.R. §
2
1003.2(a).
As we have previously explained regarding the regulation at issue here, however,
“[b]ecause the BIA retains unfettered discretion to decline to sua sponte reopen or
reconsider a deportation proceeding, this court is without jurisdiction to review a decision
declining to exercise such discretion to reopen or reconsider the case.” Calle-Vujiles v.
Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 475 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517
(2d Cir. 2006). As such, we are without jurisdiction to consider Bhoja’s petition.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss Bhoja’s petition for lack of appellate
jurisdiction.
3