
    Zygmunt KIEREWICZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60330
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 22, 2008.
    Raed Gonzalez, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Edward C. Durant, Remi Adalemo, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Zygmunt Kierewicz, a native and citizen of Poland, filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his August 16, 2006, motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA determined, among other things, that the motion was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

This court cannot undertake review of an agency’s discretionary determination where there is “no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985). There are no guidelines directing the BIA’s decision whether to reconsider on its own motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to deny Kierewicz’s untimely motion to reopen. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir.2004) (concluding that appellate courts were precluded from reviewing an immigration judge’s denial of an untimely motion to reopen).

Accordingly, Kierewicz’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
       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.
     