Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8648544
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Urbina v. Mukasey
No. 8648544 · Decided March 18, 2008
No. 8648544·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 18, 2008
Citation
No. 8648544
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of *621 petitioner’s second motion to reopen. This court has considered petitioner’s response to the court’s September 7, 2007 order to show cause. We conclude the petition should be summarily denied in part because the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2 (c)(2); Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004). We further conclude the petition should be dismissed in part because we have no jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s decision not to reopen the case sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir.2002). Respondent’s motion for summary disposition in part and to dismiss in part is therefore granted. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. All other pending motions are denied as moot. 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 ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of *621 petitioner’s second motion to reopen.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of *621 petitioner’s second motion to reopen.
02This court has considered petitioner’s response to the court’s September 7, 2007 order to show cause.
03We conclude the petition should be summarily denied in part because the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred.
04We further conclude the petition should be dismissed in part because we have no jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s decision not to reopen the case sua sponte.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of *621 petitioner’s second motion to reopen.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Urbina v. Mukasey in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 18, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8648544 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.