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 unani 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 KU M AR SANT, 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 . 07- 70766 07- 72497 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 117- 464 ME MOR AN DU M

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an 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 June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In these consol i dat ed pet i t i on s f or re vi ew , K um arS ant , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n of Indi a, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) orders d e n y in g h is m o tio n s to r e c o n s id e r . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r , Cano

# FI LED JU L 15 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 70766

Me r i da v . I

NS , 311 F . 3d 960, 964 ( 9th C i r . 2002) , and w e r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of du e p r o c e s s v io la tio n s in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s , Co lm e n a rv . I NS , 210 F . 3d 967, 971 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . W e de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partpe t i t i on N o. 07- 70766 and w e de nype t i t i on N o. 07- 72497. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng S ant ’ s m ot i on s t o rec on si der because they w er e f

i l ed m ore than tw o years af t erthe B IA ’ s O ct ob er1, 20 02 , order s u m m ar ilya f

f irm in g th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n , se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rad e c is io n m u s t b e f ile dw ith th e B I A w ith in 30 day s a f

t e rthe m a i l i ng of

the de c i s i on) , and S antf a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h gr ounds f or e q u itab le to llin g , s e e I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 897 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng a va i l abl e “ w he n ape t i t i one ri s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng be c aus e of dece pt i on , fr aud, or error, as l on g as the pet i t i on erac t s w i th d ue di l i gence”) . 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 . Se e Eki m i a n v . I NS , 303 F . 3d 1153, 1159 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). W e d ecl i n e t o reco n si d er S an t ’ s ch al l en g e t o th e IJ’ s u n d erl yi n g ad v erse c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on be c aus e thi s c ourta l r e a dyde c i de d the i s s ue i n Sa ntv. A s h c r o ft , N o . 0 2 - 7 3 4 3 3 ( 9 th C ir . Ju ly1 5 , 2 0 0 4 ) . See Merri t t v. M acke y , 932 F . 2d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t u n d e rth e “la w o f th e c a s e d o c tr in e ,”07- 70766 3 on e panelof an appel l at e c ou rtw i l l no tre consi der quest i on s w hi ch another panel has dec i ded o n a pri or appeali n the sam e c as e) . F i n al l y, S an t ’ s du e p ro cess cl ai m s fai l b ecau se p ro ceed i n g s w ere n o t“ so fund am ent al l y unfai r that[he] w as prevent ed fr om re as on abl y pre se nt i ng hi s c as e. ” C olm e nar , 210 F . 3d a t971. N o. 07 -707 66 : 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. No . 0 7 - 7 2 4 9 7 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.