
    Milciades FELIZ-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60327
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 14, 2007.
    Romben Aquino, Ferro & Cuccia, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Milciades Feliz-Cruz (Feliz) petitions this court for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Feliz concedes that he has filed two motions to reopen, but he contends that because his first motion alleged that he was denied notice before the immigration judge issued an in absentia removal order, the first motion should not count against the numerical limitation placed on motions to reopen. Feliz cannot establish that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his most recent motion to reopen as exceeding the numerical limitation on such filings. See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549-50 (5th Cir.2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(h).

Feliz also contends that the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the case sua sponte, in light of the exceptional circumstances he has shown. Because there is “no legal standard against which to judge an [administrative agency’s] decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority,” we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir.2004). Feliz’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     