N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NAB I HOSSEN, AKA Za h i ngir Ala

m Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-70457 Age n c y No. A075-659-701 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Nove m

be r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Zahingir Ala

m , a native and c itiz e n of B angla de sh, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his m otion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings he ld in a bse ntia . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for 

# FIL ED NOV 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

buse o f disc re tion the de n i a l of a m o tion to re ope n, a

nd re vie w de novo que stions of la w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C i r. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a n d dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing Ala m ’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly

whe re the m otion wa s file d ove r e le ve n y e ars a fte r his re m ova l orde r be c am e fina l, se e8 C . F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), a nd Ala m wa s pe rsona lly

se rve d with notic e of his re m o va l he aring, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2); 8 U.S.C . § 1229(a); Flore

s-C h a v e z v . Ashc roft , 362 F.3d 1150, 1156 n. 4 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ C urre nt la

w doe s not re quire tha

t the Notic e to Appe ar . . . be in a ny la ngua ge othe r tha

n English.” ), and fa ile d to show the due dilige nc e re quire d for e quita ble tolling of the

filing de a dline , se e Av a

gy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th C ir. 2011) (e quita

ble tolling is a

va ila ble to a pe titione r who is pre ve nte d from filing be c a

use of de c e ption, fra

ud or e rror, and e x e rc ise d due dilige nc e in disc ove ring suc h c irc um sta nc e s). To the e xte nt Ala

m c onte nds his dueproc e ss rights were viola te d by the IJ’ s a pplic ation of a

n im prope r sta nda rd, fa ilure to givesuffic ie nt we i ght to thea lle ge d fraud, a nd m issta te m e nt of the fa c ts, there c ord doe s not support his c la im s. Se e Lata v . IN

S, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror a nd pre judic e to pre v a i l on a

due proc e ss c la im ). To thee xte nt Ala m c onte n ds his dueproc e ss 1 2 - 7 0 4 5 7 2rights we re viola te d by the IJ’ s fa ilure to a ddre ss Ala m ’ s notic e c onte ntion, Ala m ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish pre judic e . Id . W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Alam ’ s c ha lle nge to thea sy lum offic e r’ s re fusa l to intervie w Ala

m be c a use Ala m did not raise tha

t c onte ntion be fore the a ge nc y . S

e eBarron v . Ashc roft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (this c ourt la c k s jurisdic tion to re v ie w c onte nt ions not raise d be fore the a ge nc y ) . In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h Ala

m ’ s c o nte ntion re late d to the B IA’ s de c ision in Matte r of J -G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 161 (B IA 2013). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t .

1 2 - 7 0 4 5 7 3