Case ID: f-appx_682/html/0599-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONG THANH CHAU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70010
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Cong Thanh Chau, Pro Se
    Rachel Louise Browning, Trial Attorney, Edward C. Durant, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cong Thanh Chau, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chau’s motion to reconsider and reopen as untimely, where it was filed fourteen years after his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Chau failed to establish any exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4).

To the extent Chau contends he is eligible for status under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(f), the IJ correctly noted that the granting of such status is outside of the immigration court’s jurisdiction, see 8 U.S.C. § 1154(f)(1) (petition for classification is to be filed with the Attorney General), and the record does not reflect that Chau has filed such a petition.

To the extent Chau requests prosecuto-rial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to consider that request. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).

Chau’s remaining contentions, including alleged violations of due process, equal protection, and international law, are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.