determination is also based on non-erroneous findings that alone are sufficient for us to uphold her decision because we can confidently 2003). The Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir.2005); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir.2004). An abuse of discretion may be found where the BIA’s decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Kaur, 413 F.3d at eview the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for
holding that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on its sua sponte authority holding that a decision of the bia whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 cfr  10032a is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond the courts review  ie the court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias decision not to reopen holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a claim not brought before the bia even when the bia addresses it sua sponte holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of the bia refusing to reopen immigration proceedings sua sponte holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling