Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60370 Su m m ar y Cal endar

AL I N AW AZ P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 95 319 982

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , A N D E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A l iN aw az, a cit i zen a n d n ative of P ak i st an , petit i on s t h i s c ou rtf or r evi ew of t h e B oard o f Im m i grati on A pp eal s’( B IA) order deny i n g h i s m ot i on f or
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

t h e de n i a lo f

h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n r e mo v a lp r o c e e d i n g s . H e h a s mo v e df

o ras t a yo f

r e mo v a ld u r i n gt h e p e n d e n c y o f h i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. N aw az c onc ede s t hath i s m ot i on t o r eo pen w as unt i m ely butar gues t hat t h e B IAabu sed i t s di scr et i on by den yi n g h i s m ot i on f or reconsi derati on becau se th e B IAsh ou l dh a ve reop en edh i s rem ov a l p roce ed i n gs pu rsu a n t t o it s au th ority United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60370

2 t o reopen rem oval proceedi n gs sua spon t e. H e m ai n t ai n s that the B IAabu sed i t s di sc r et i on be c ause i tdi d notaddres s al lof the fac t or s he r ai se d s how i ng t hat h e m e t h is b u r d e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin ge x c e p tio n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n db e c a u s e it di d n otprovi de a reason ed exp l an ati on t o sup port i t s r u li n g. H e f u rt h er contend s that the B IAerr on eou sly concl u ded t h at he w as not eli gibl e t o adj u st h i s s t atus b e ca u se he h adef fect ivel y w i t h draw n hi s r equ estf or vol u n t ary dep art u re pri or t o t h e expi rat i on of t h e t i m e al l ow ed f

or vol u n t ary dep art u re. I n E n ri qu ez-A l vara d o v. A shcroft , 3 7 1 F .3d 2 4 6 , 2 4 9 -5 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), t h i s c ou rthel d that itdi d n oth ave j u ri sdi ct i on to r evi ew a deci si on not t o reopen rem oval proceedi n gss ua s po nt eb e c aus ethe r ei s nom ean i n gf u lst an da rd aga i n st
w hi c h t o j udge t he e xer c i seof di sc r et i on i n m aki ng s uch a de c i si on. N aw az ac kno w l e dg e s t he r ul i ng i n Enri quez -Al v arado , bu t as s e r ts tha t E n ri qu ezAl v arado w as w r ongly de c i ded. R egar dl es s of t he m er i t s of N aw az’ s c hal l enge t o t he r ul i ng i n Enri quez -Al v arado , w e m ay n otovert u rn the rul i n g of t h e pan el in th a t c a s e b e c a u s e th e r e h a s n o t b e e n a n in te rv e n in gch a n g e inla w . S ee Jacobs v. Nat’

lD rug Inte l l igence C t r. , 5 4 8 F .3d 3 7 5 , 3 7 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). A ccord i n gly , w e d o n ot h a ve j u ri sd i cti on to rev i ew the B IA ’ s d ecisi on n ot to
r e o p e n N a w a z ’ s re m o v a lp r o c e e d in g s s u as p o n te
. S ee Enri quez -Al v arado , 371 F

. 3dat 249

- 50. A s w e do not h ave j u ri sdi ct i ont o revi ew t h e B IA ’ s deci si on not t o r e o p e n N a w a z ’s r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s s u as p o n t e , w e d o n o tr e a c h th e B IA ’s alt e r nat ivede t e r m i nat i o n tha tN awaz w as i ne l i gibl e f o ra dj us t m e nto f

s t at us consi de r at i o n f

o rape r i o d o f

1 0 ye ar s b e c aus e he ha d no tde pa r t e d the U ni t ed St at e s i n t he t i m e a l l o w e d. In a d d itio n to h is n o n -c o n s tit u tio n a l c h a lle n g e s to th e B IA ’ s d e n ia l o f h is
m ot i on f

or r econsi derati on , N aw az argu es t h at th e B IAvi ol ated his du e process ri gh ts inits den i a lof h i s m oti on f or re con sider a ti on . N a w a z a sse rts tha t th e B IA d en i edh i s d u e p roce ss righ ts t o a f u l lan dfa i r h ea ri n g a n da re a son a b le
o ppo r t uni t y t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e b y no t c o ns i de r i ng e vi de nc e a nd a r gum e nt s he pr e s e nt e d.N o. 08- 60370

3 W hi l e w e don oth ave j uri sdi c t i on tocons i derN aw az’ s non- c ons t i t ut i onal
c h a l l e n g e s t o t h e BIA’ s r e f u s a lt o r e o p e n h i s r e mo v a lp r o c e e d i n g s s u as p o n t e , we ret ai n j u ri sdi ct i on t o consi der constit u t i on alchal l en ges t h at w ere r ai sed bef ore th e B IA

. S ee8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ); Mai v. G on zales , 47 3 F

. 3 d16 2 , 16 4 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e re v ie w co n s tit u tio n a l cla im s d e n o v o . Heaven v. G o n zales , 473 F .3d 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). Al t ho ughN awaz s t yl e s hi s c hall e ngea s aduepr o c e s s c l ai m , hi s a r gum e nt i s t h at th e B IAdi d n otsuf f i ci en t l y consi der his evi den ce an d argum en t s because i t di d not suff

i ci en t l y di scuss t h e evi den ce an d argum en t s i n i t s rul i n g . T h ese al l egeddef

i ci en ci es i n t h e B IA ’ s ru li n gd o n otri se t o t h e l evelof a du e process
v io la tio n . S ee T

os c ano- G i lv. Trom i nski , 2 1 0 F .3d 4 7 0 , 4 7 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). F u r th e r m o r e , th e re a s o n in gp r o v i d e d inth e B IA ’ s ru lin gw a s s u ffic ie n t a s it de m o ns t r at e d thati tha d c o ns i dered t he i s s ue s r ai s e d a nd h ad“he ar d a nd th ou gh t a n dn ot m ere l y re a cted

. ” Y a h k p u av . I NS , 7 70 F

. 2d1 317 , 1 321 (5t h C i r. 1985) ( quot i ng Os u c h u k wu v . I NS , 7 4 4 F .2d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 2 -4 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 4 )). PE TI TI ON FOR RE VI EW D E NI E D; MOTI ON FOR S TAY OFREM OVAL DE NI ED

.