
    Claudia SIFUENTES-ASTURIAS; Cesar Asturias-Sifuentes; Edwin Jovany Asturias-Sifuentes; Claudia Lalila Asturias-Sifuentes; Kevin Jeordao Asturias-Sifuentes, Petitioners v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-60483
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 7, 2009.
    Michael L. Jacob, Law Offices of Michael L. Jacob, Brainbridge Island, WA, for Petitioners.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Justin Constantine, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Guadalupe R. Gonzales, Immigration & Customs Enforcement Chief Counsel’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Respondent.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Petitioners, Claudia Sifuentes-Astu-rias, Cesar Asturias-Sifuentes, Edwin Jo-vany Asturias-Sifuentes, Claudia Lalila Asturias-Sifuentes, and Kevin Jeordao Asturias-Sifuentes, citizens of Guatemala, petition this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA determined, inter alia, that the motion to reopen was filed almost six years after the BIA’s dismissal of their appeal and the motion was therefore untimely. The Petitioners argue that the delay in filing their motion was attributable to ineffective assistance of counsel and the time limit for filing such a motion should therefore be equitably tolled.

Subject to certain exceptions that are inapplicable here, a motion to reopen removal proceedings “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.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The only authority for reopening the Petitioners’ removal proceeding was the BIA’s sua sponte authority to reopen the case pursuant to § 1003.2(a). See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-20 (5th Cir.2008). Under § 1003.2(a), the BIA has complete discretion to deny untimely motions to reopen. See id. This court lacks jurisdiction to review such decisions and therefore lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision in the instant proceeding. See id. at 220; Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir.2004).

PETITION DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     