Hayad Guure, etc. v. Michael Mukasey
Opinion
Hayad Ahmed Guure and her children petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. In particular, petitioners challenge the BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte the removal proceedings, so that petitioners could reapply for asylum on the basis of female genital mutilation. We lack jurisdiction, however, to review a BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. See Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1001, 1004-05 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (per curiam). 2
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
. To the extent petitioners intended to challenge the remainder of the BIA’s decision denying the motion to reopen, we agree with the BIA that the motion was untimely, and petitioners failed to show they met any exception to the time limitation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (time limitation); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (exceptions); Ghasemimehr v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying untimely motion to reopen).
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hayad Ahmed GUURE; Salma Ciise Liban; Yahia Ciise Liban; Zubeer Ciise Liban, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
- Status
- Unpublished