N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
R OB ER TO ADONAY GALAN, AKA R obe rto Ga la

n M artine z , Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70697 Age n c y No. A075-637-534
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

12, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d W ATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SOTO, ** Distric t Judge
. An im m igration judge de te rm ine d tha t R obe rto Ga la

n did not e sta

blish a
re a s ona ble fe ar of pe rse c ution or torture . Ga la n file d a tim e ly pe tition for re vie w of tha t de c ision in our c ourt. W e late r dism i sse d the pe t ition a fte r Ga la n fa ile d to 

# F IL ED
J UN 07 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja m e s Ala n Soto, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.Pa ge 2 of 3

file an ope ning brie f; a s a re sult, them e rits of the ne ga tive re a sona ble fe a r de te rm i na tion a

re not be fore us. W

ha t is be fore us is a

filing tha t Ga la n subm itte d to the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a lle g ing tha t his prior c ounse l ha d provide d ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e in the re a sona

ble fe ar proc e e dings. Thefiling wa s te c hnic a lly

a notic e of a

p pe a l from the im

m igration judge ’ s orde r de ny ing
re c o nside ra tion of he r origina l de c ision, but Gala n c onte nds tha

t the B IA should have c o nstrue d it a s a

m otion to re ope n . The B IA dism isse d the filing on the ground tha

t it la c ks a

uthority to re vie w ne ga tive re a sona ble fe ar de te rm inations. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 to re vie w the B IA’ s de te rm ination of its own a uthority ove r m otions to re ope n. Re y n oso-C isne r os v . Gonzale

s , 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). The B IA prope rly

de c line d to e nte rta in Ga l an’ s filing. Re gula tions issue d by the Attorne y

Ge n e ra l pre c lude the B IA from re vie wing ne ga tive re a sona ble fe ar de te rm i na tions. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.31(g)(1). Ga l an’ s c onte ntion tha t the filing he subm itte d to the B IA should be c onstrue d a s a m otion to re ope n doe s not c ha nge the re sult. A m otion to re ope n is intric a te ly re late d to the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r. S armadi v . IN

S , 121 F.3d 1319, 1321 (9th C ir. 1997). Thus, the a bse nc e of
a uthority to re vie w a

pa rtic u la r c la ss of re m ova l orde rs a l so sugge sts the a bse nc e of
a uthority to re ope n those proc e e dings, unle ss a n inde pe nde n t sourc e of le ga lPa ge 3 of 3

a uthority for re ope ning e xists. Se e id. He re , the only inde p e n de nt sourc e of
a uthority pote ntia lly

ava i la ble is the re gula

tion tha t ge ne ra lly a

uthoriz e s the B IA to
re ope n proc e e d ings. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(a). Howe ve r, by its pla in te rm s, tha

t
re gula tion a uthoriz e s the B IA to re ope n proc e e dings only if it ha s re n de re d a

prior de c ision in the

c a se . Id. The B IA did not m a ke a prior de c ision in this c a se be c a use it ha d no role in Ga la

n’ s re a sona

ble fe ar proc e e dings. In e sse nc e , Ga l an c ha lle nge s the Attorne y Ge n e ra l’ s de c ision to struc ture
re a s ona ble fe ar proc e e dings in suc h a wa y that the B IA ha s no role to pla y in
re vie wing a dve rse de t e rm i na tions m a de by im m igration judge s. Tha

t c ha lle nge la c ks m e rit. The B IA is “ a re gula tory c re a t ure ,” and nothing c om

pe ls the Attorne y Ge ne ra l to providethe B IA with a uthority to re vie w or re ope n re a sona ble fe ar proc e e dings in whic h a

n im m igration judge ha s m a de an a d ve rse de te rm i na tion. IN S v . Dohe rty , 502 U.S. 314, 327 (1992) (plura lity opinion). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.