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 JOSE C RISTOB A L C R

UZ PLEITEZ, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72876 Age n c y No. A074-803-846
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 August 14, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s, a

nd M . WATSON, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Jose C ristoba l C ruz Ple ite z , a native an d c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor,
se e k s re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (" B IA" ) de c ision de ny ing his 2014 m otion to re o p e n a

nd to re sc ind a

n in a bse ntia de porta tion orde r. In this 

# F IL ED SEP 18 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l H. W atson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.disposition, we c onside r Pe titione r’ s c la im s tha t (1) he did not re c e ive prope r notic e of the he aring, both be c a use he ne ve r re c e ive d the Orde r to Show C a use and Notic e of He aring a

nd be c a use it did not c onta in the a ppropria te inform at ion; (2) the m e thod of notic e viola te d Pe titione r’ s rights under the Fifth Am e n dm e nt’ s Equa l Prote c tion C la

u se ; a nd (3) the m otion to re ope n wa s im prope rly de nie d. W e de ny the pe tition. 1 Whe n " t he B IA c o nduc ts its own re vie w of the e vide nc e an d la w, rathe r tha

n
a dopting the

IJ’ s de c ision, our re vie w is limi te d to the B IA’ s de c ision, e xc e pt to the
e xte nt the IJ’ s opinion is e xpre ssly a dopte d." Zum e l v. Ly

n c h , 803 F.3d 463, 471 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting R odrigue z v. Holde r, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th C ir. 2012)). W e re vie w the de nia l of a m otion to re ope n

for a b u se of disc re tion. B onilla v. Ly nc h, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th C ir. 2016). " W e re vie w d e nov o the B IA’ s de te rm i nation of que stions of la w, e xc e pt to thee xte nt tha t de fe re nc e is owe d to its inte rpre tation of thegove rning sta tute s a nd re gula tions." Le z am a -Ga

rc ia v. Holde r, 666 F.3d 518, 524 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d)). 1. The notic e is inc lude d in the re c o rd. It c le arly shows Pe titione r’ s signa ture and a ll of the ne c e ssa ry inform ation. Se e form e r 8 U.S.C . § 1252b(a)(2);

1 W e re solve Pe t itione r’ s othe r c la im s in a n opinion file d this da

te . 2Flore s -C have z v. Ashc roft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing the

re quire m e nts for a de q

u a te notic e ). Pe titione r ha d the opportunity to provide
a dditiona l e vide nc e that the notic e wa s ina de quate in som e wa y , but he did not do so. The re fore , Pe t itione r re c e ive d a d e quate notic e of the he aring a n d is not e ligible for re lie f unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252b(c )(3)(B ). 2. W e re vie we qua l prote c tion c h a lle n g e s to fe d e ra l im m igration la

ws involving non-c itiz e ns unde r the ra tiona l ba sis sta nda rd a nd uphold them

if the y
are " rationa lly re late d to a le gitim ate gove rnm e n t purpose ." He rnande z -M anc illa v. Holde r, 633 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting M a sna u ska s v. Gonz a le s, 432 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th C ir. 2005)); se e a l so De nt v. Se ssions, 900 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th C ir. 2018) (distinguishing be t we e n issue s involving c itiz e nship a n d issue s involving the

a dm ission of non-c itiz e ns), c e rt. de nie d, 139 S. C t. 1472 (2019). " Using suc h rationa l-ba sis re vie w, a sta tute is pre sum e d c onstitutiona l, a nd

‘ t he burde n is on theone atta c king thele g isla tive arran ge m e nt to ne gative e ve ry
c onc e iva ble ba sis whic h

m ight support it.’ " M a sna uska s, 432 F.3d a

t 1071 (quoting He lle r v. Doe , 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993)). He re , the gove rnm e n t offe rs rationa l re a sons for distinguishing be twe e n notic e re q uire m e nts for de ta ine d juve nile s who a re re l e a se d to a

re sponsiblea dult
and notic e re quire m e nts for juve nile s who we re ne ve r de ta ine d . In the latte r
3situa

tion, the re m ay

be no re s ponsiblea dult a n d, e v e n if the re we re , it would be burde n som e to loc a te one . The re fore , we hold tha t the se pa ra t e notic e
re quire m e nts do not viola te the Fifth Am e ndm e nt’ s Equa l Prote c tion C la use . 3. Pe titione r file d the untim e l y m otion to re ope n

m ore tha n 17 y e a rs a fte r his he aring, a

nd he fa ils to m e e t a

ny of the e xc e p tions to the

tim e line ss rule . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b). Additiona lly , Pe titione r did not provide e v ide nc e of c ha

nge d
c ountry c onditions. Se e id. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). In re M -S-, 22 I. & N. De c . 349, 350–51 (B .I.A. 1998) (e n ba nc ), on whic h Pe titione r re lie s, is distinguisha ble be c a use tha t pe titione r’ s m o tion to re ope n wa s file d only six we e ks a fte r the de porta tion he aring a

n d wa s tim e ly
. B e c a use Pe titione r doe s not a lle ge le ga l or c onstitutiona l e rror in the B IA’ s de c ision de ny ing sua sponte re o pe ning, we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r the
a ge nc y ’ s de nia l. M e ne nde z -Gonz a le z v. B arr, 929 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th C ir. 2019). 4. To the e xte nt tha

t Pe t itione r ra ise s a dditiona l a rgum e nts, we are not pe rsua de d. Pe tition DE N IE D in par t and DISM ISSE D in par t
.

4