as follows: The respondent moves the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 to reopen our decision dated November 15, 2005. The respondent seeks reopening to apply for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As an initial matter, we note that the respondent’s March 8, 2006, motion to reopen is untimely, inasmuch as it was not filed within 90 day[s] of our November 15, 2005, final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Furthermore, we find that the respondent has failed to establish that reopening is warranted pursuant to our sua sponte authority. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We find that the respondent’s subsequent eligibility for discretionary relief does not establish exceptional circumstances. See Matter of J-J-, 21 I & N Dec. 976 (BIA 1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the motion is denied. Badreddine
holding that the district court cannot remand sua sponte for defects in removal procedure holding hardship is discovered in the rare case based on exceptional circumstances holding that bankruptcy courts have inherent power and authority under 11 usc  105a to sua sponte reconsider modify or vacate orders previously entered holding that where the board of immigration is permitted to reopen proceedings in exceptional circumstances its decision not to reopen a case is unreviewable because there are no statutory regulatory or caselaw definitions of exceptional circumstances  and  thus no manageable standard to apply on review holding that the boards power to reopen or reconsider cases sua sponte is limited to exceptional circumstances and is not meant to cure filing defects or circumvent the regulations where enforcing them might result in hardship