Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8643802
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ortega v. Gonzales
No. 8643802 · Decided July 27, 2007
No. 8643802·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 27, 2007
Citation
No. 8643802
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen. Petitioners’ motion to hold this petition for review in abeyance is denied. Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). A party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed not later than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely when it was filed over three years after the deadline for filing motions to reopen. *410 This court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ argument that the BIA should have reopened proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.2002). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen.
02Petitioners’ motion to hold this petition for review in abeyance is denied.
03Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.