Romano v. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM ** Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition in part 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). The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen, filed more than two years after the final administrative decision was rendered. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied in part. Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss in part is granted. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision denying petitioner’s request to reopen proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 808 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, this petition for review is dismissed in part. All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. 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.