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 pane 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 ar 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 LE TI CI A ROD ARTE , 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. 08- 73650 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 867- 602 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 ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L et i ci a R od art e, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s pro se for r evi ew o f th e B o ar 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 e rm o tio n to reco n si d er an dreo p en rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s. O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on t o reopen 

# FI LED OC T 13 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73650 2 o rr e c o n s id e r , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 3 2 1 F . 3 d8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dwe rev i ew d e n o v o cl ai m s o f co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n s i n i m m i g rat i o n p ro ceed i n g s, Ra m v . I NS , 2 4 3 F .3 d5 1 0 , 5 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . W e d is m is s in p art an dd e n yin p a rtth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I n he rope ni ng br i e f

, R odart e f

a i l s t o a ddr e s s , a nd the r e f or e ha s w a i ve d a ny ch al l en g e t o , th e B IA ’ s d et erm i n at i o n th ath er m o t i o n t o reco n si d er w as u n t i m el y. Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i s s ue s not spec i fi ca l l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n a party’ s openi ng bri ef ar e w ai ved). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng R oda rt e ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n, because the B IA consi dere d the evi dence s he subm i tt ed and act ed w i thi n i t s broad d is c r e tio n in d e te rm in in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to w arr an t r e o p e n in g . Se e S i n gh v . I

NS , 2 9 5 F .3 d1 0 3 7 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n s h a ll b e r e v e r s e dif it is “a rb itr ary , irr a tio n a l, o rc o n tr aryto law ” ) . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that R odart e f

a i l e d t o s how e xc e pt i ona l a nd e xtr e m e l yunus ua l ha r ds hi p t o aqua l i f y i ng re l at i ve. See M

art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 42 4 F . 3d 92 6, 93 0 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). F i na l l y , w e a r e notpe r s ua de d tha tR oda rt e ’ s r e m ova l r e s ul t s i n the d e p r iv a tio n o f

h e rc h ild r e n ’s r ig h ts . See Cab re ra-A lvarez v . G on zales , 423 F . 3d 10 06 , 10 12 -13 (9th C i r. 20 05 ).08- 73650 3 R o d arte ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s la c km e r it. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.