Osorio-Ruano v. Mukasey , 259 F. App'x 663 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 18, 2007
    No. 07-60261
    Summary Calendar                Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    NIVARDO OSORIO-RUANO
    Petitioner
    v.
    MICHAEL B MUKASEY, ACTING U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A73 706 674
    Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Nivardo Osorio-Ruano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, has filed a
    petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming
    an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of an untimely motion to reopen an in
    absentia removal proceeding. Osorio argues that the BIA erred and that the IJ
    erred by declining to exercise sua sponte authority to grant his out-of-time
    motion to reopen. He contends that the circumstances in his case rise to the
    level of exceptional circumstances justifying sua sponte reopening. He also
    *
    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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
    No. 07-60261
    argues that this court should remand his case because he is prima facie eligible
    for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act.
    This court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision not to exercise its sua
    sponte authority to reopen Osorio’s removal proceedings. See Enriquez-Alvarado
    v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 246
    , 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004). While Osorio relies upon policy
    considerations that he asserts warrant a remand for consideration of his
    purported NACARA eligibility, he fails to explain why this court would have
    authority to remand the case when this court does not have jurisdiction to
    review the BIA’s actions. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.43
    (a).
    For the foregoing reasons, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this
    appeal. The petition for review is therefore DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-60261

Citation Numbers: 259 F. App'x 663

Judges: Jolly, Per Curiam, Prado, Southwick

Filed Date: 12/18/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023