
    Shaqe HAXHIJA Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-925-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 15, 2012.
    Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel; Matt A. Crapo, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Shaqe Haxhija, a native of the former Yugoslavia and citizen of Kosovo, seeks review of a February 19, 2010, order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Shaqe Haxhija, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Haxhi-ja’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of reopening. Haxhija argues only that the BIA abused its discretion in declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen his proceedings. The BIA’s determination as to whether it will exercise its sua sponte authority is “entirely discretionary and therefore beyond our review.” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006). Although remand is appropriate “where the Agency may have declined to exercise its sua sponte authority because it misper-ceived the legal background and thought, incorrectly, that a reopening would necessarily fail,” Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir.2009), there is no indication here that the BIA misperceived the law in declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte. There is no suggestion that the BIA denied Haxhija’s motion based on his failure to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status; rather, the BIA determined that Haxhija had not shown an “exceptional situation” that would warrant reopening his proceedings sua sponte and therefore simply declined to exercise its authority to do so.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.  