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 lunani 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 L U I S S E R - A B O R , a . k. a . R aulM e di na D ur an, 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 os . 08- 74050 09- 72949 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 364- 563 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

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 F e bruary15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w , L ui s S e r - A bor , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A p p ea ls’ (“B IA ”) o rd er s d ism issin g h is ap p ea l fro m an im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s r e m o v a l o r d e r , an dd e n y in g h is m o tio n s to r e o p e n an dr e m an d . O u rju r is d ic tio n is 

# FI LED MA R 02 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72949 2 go verned by 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 o tio n to r e m an do rr e o p e n , Mo vs is ia n v . A s h c r o ft, 39 5 F . 3d10 95 , 10 98 (9th C i r. 2005) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i n N o. 08- 74050, and de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i n N o. 09- 72949. 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 S e r - A b o r ’s m o tio n to r e m an db e c au s e th e m o tio n w a s n o t s up p o rte db ye v id e n c e s h o w in g p r im af a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o rr e lie f . Se e O rdo n ezv . I

NS , 3 4 5 F .3 d7 7 7 , 7 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n h is ope ni ng br i e f

, S e r - A borf

a i l s t o a ddr e s s , and the r e f or e ha s w a i ve d anyc ha l l e nge t o, th e a g e n c y ’s d e n ia l o f

h is c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l ap p lic a tio n . See M a rt i n ezSe rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S e r - A bor s ’ M ar c h 5, 2009, m o tio n to r e o p e n a s u n tim e lyw h e r e S e r - A b o rf ile dth e m o tio n m o r e th an n in e ty d ay s a f te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and fai l ed t o sub m i tnew and m at er i alevi dence of changed cou ntrycond i t i on s i n M exi co that w o u lde x c u s e th e la te f

ilin g , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3)( i i ).09- 72949 3 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 de c i s i on nott o i nvoke i t s s ua s p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e 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 Ekim i an v. I NS , 303 F . 3d 1153, 1159 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . I f w e ha d j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on, w e w oul d f i nd no abus e of

di s c r e t i on. I n No . 0 8 - 7 4 0 5 0 : P E T I T I ON F OR DE NI E D. In N o. 09 -729 49 : 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.