Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8660769
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ortiz v. Mukasey
No. 8660769 · Decided March 24, 2008
No. 8660769·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 24, 2008
Citation
No. 8660769
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Artemio Urbina Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We review for abuse of discretion. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioner failed timely to file his motion or provide additional evidence to support an exception to the 90-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2). As to petitioner’s request for sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening of petitioner’s ease. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (a); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Artemio Urbina Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellati
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Artemio Urbina Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellati
02We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because petitioner failed timely to file his motion or provide additional evidence to support an exception to the 90-day deadline.
03As to petitioner’s request for sua sponte reopening, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening of petitioner’s ease.
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Artemio Urbina Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen the underlying denial of his application for cancellati
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Ortiz v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 24, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8660769 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.