
    Jose Manuel HIGAREDA-CRISTERNA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74245.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 1, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2008.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Richai'd M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Paul Fiorino, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner Jose Manuel Higareda-Cristerna’s motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen because it was filed on February 1, 2008, more than 90 days after the January 20, 2004 final order of removal. See id. Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion for summary disposition of this petition for review in part because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition in part for lack of jurisdiction.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     