FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO BUENO-BARAJAS, No. 07-71773
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-081-357
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Bueno-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen. Our
*
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).
JTK/Research
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v.
INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Bueno-Barajas’ motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than six years after the IJ’s
June 21, 2000, removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). We are not
persuaded by Bueno-Barajas’ contention that the vacatur of his prior conviction
establishes an exception to the 90-day filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4). The untimeliness determination is dispositive of Bueno-Barajas’
remaining contentions.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
JTK/Research 2 07-71773