T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RI G O BERTO CA STREJ O N - TELLES, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 71863 A ge nc yN o. A 037- 441- 199 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry15, 2013 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , B E A , an dN G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R i gobe rt o C a s tr e

j on- T e l l e s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or r e v ie w o f

th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e ope n. O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of

am ot i on t o r e ope n. A vagyan v. H older , 646 F . 3d 672, 674 

# FI LED JAN 16 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 71863 2 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). We d e n yi n p a rta n dd i s m i s s i n p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g C a s tr e jo n - T e lle s ’ m o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y w here the m ot i on w as fi l ed m ore than tw enty- on e y ears af t er the B I A ’ s J ul y5, 1989, or de ra f f i rm i ng the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s or de rof de port a t i on, a nd C a s tr e

j on- T e l l e s di d note s t abl i s h tha ta n e xc e pt i on t o the f i l i ng d e a d lin e ap p lie d . See 8 C . F . R . §§ 10 03 . 2(c) (2) ( A m ot i on t o reopen “mu stbe fi l ed no l at erthan 9 0 d ay s a ft erthe dat e on w hi ch the fi nal adm i ni stra t i ve deci si on w as r e nde r e d i n the pr oc e e di ng s oughtt o be r e ope ne d, oron orbe f or e S e pt e m be r30, 19 96 , w hi chever i s l at er . ”) , 10 03 . 2(c) (3) ( prov i di ng exce pt i on s) . T o the e xt e ntthe B I A a l s o c onc l ude d tha te qui t abl e t ol l i ng di d notappl y , the B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng the m ot i on on the grou nd that C a s tr e jo n - T e lle s f

a ile d to e s tab lis h d u e d ilig e n c e . Se e A v agy an , 646 F . 3d a t678- 80 ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng i s a va i l abl e t o ape t i t i one rw ho e s t abl i s he s de c e pt i on, f r aud or error, and exerci se d d ue di l i gence i n d i sc ov er i ng such ci rc um st ance s) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s di s c r e t i ona ryde c i s i on nott o i nvoke its s u as p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e n d e p o rta tio n p r o c e e d in g s u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . See Sh a rm a v. H o lder, 63 3 F . 3d 86 5, 87 4 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). C a s tr e jo n - T e lle s ’ r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n a v a ilin g . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.