NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOO SUK KIM, No. 15-72034
Agency No. A045-460-798
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Joo Suk Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in
absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law.
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 agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Kim’s motion to
reopen as untimely, where he filed his motion more than six years after his final
administrative order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (a motion to reopen
must be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal), he concedes notice of the
hearing, he concedes that his motion was untimely, and he does not assert any
exceptional circumstance exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (setting out exceptions to filing deadline).
Because this determination is dispositive, we do not reach Kim’s contentions
regarding removability.
To the extent Kim contends that the agency should have exercised its sua
sponte authority to reopen his case, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider that
contention. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011);
cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575,588 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
2 15-72034