
    Jose Manuel Castro CARRANZA; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 28, 2009.
    
    Filed March 9, 2009.
    Jose Manuel Castro Carranza, Norwalk, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status.

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order declining to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte and denying petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159-60 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed in part.

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). Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not established that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen. See id.

Accordingly, the petition for review is summarily denied in part because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hoo- ton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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