FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L10, 2012 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 53 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 73 -1 15 -4 14

ROMULO JOS E ALVARADO MARTINEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si onof the Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 10 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Pet it io ne r Ro m ul o J os e Alv arad o M art in ez, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof P eru , pr o se pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w th e Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al ’s (“ BIA”) ord er d en y in g hi s m ot io n t o re op enhi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs . In h is pe ti ti on , Mart in ez ar gu es th atth e BIA erredby den y in g h is m ot io n t o re op en , by fai li ng to co ns id er the fact s th at(1) he is th e fathe r of th ree U.S. ci ti zench il dr en ; (2 ) a p et it io n m ad e o n h is be ha lf b y hi s U.S. ci ti zenwife ha d b eenap pr ov edby the U.S. Cit iz en sh ip an d Im m ig rat io n S erv ic es (“ USCIS ”), an d h e is no w pr ima fa ci eeli gi bl e to ad jus t st atus as ape rm an en t re si de ntun de r th e Imm ig rat io n andNati on al ity Act (“ INA”) § 2 45 (a), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 5( a); (3) he is no t s ub ject t o any tim e b ars ; (4 ) he ha s affe ct eda go odm or al be havi orwhi le li vi ng inth e Uni te d S ta te s an d i s n otth e subjec t o f an y

pe nd in g c riminal pro ceed in gs un de r th e INA; and , (5) if h is m ot io n to reo pe n wer e g ran te d, h e wou ldbe eli gi bl e fo r pr os ecu to ria l d is cret io n p ur su an t to a pr es id en ti al ord er t o re op enth e p ro ceed in gs of a li en s wh o h av e b eenord ered de po rte d b utwho ha ve ne ve r be enth e subjec t o f cri min al pro ceed in gs .
“ W e rev ie w th e [BI A’ s] den ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Zh an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 57 2 F .3d13 16 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . An al ie n s ub ject t o afin al ord er o f rem ov al m

us t m ov e to reo pe n the pro ceed in gs withi n 9 0 d ay s o f th e d at e o n wh ic h th e rem ov al ord er b ecame fin al . Id. ; INA § 24 0( c)(7 )(C) (i) , 8 U.S.C. 2§ 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( i). Th e 9 0- day ti m e li m itdo es no t ap pl y , in te r a li a , “ if the ali en cande m on strat e ch an ge d c ou ntry co nd it io ns ari si ng inth e co un try of n at io na li ty orth e co un try to wh ic h re m ov al ha s b eenord ered , if s uc h e vi de nc e is m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e an d wo ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredor p res en te d a t the pre vi ou s pr oc eed in g.” Id. (qu ot in g 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( ii )). “ An al ie n c an no t ci rcu m ve ntth e requi rem en t o f ch an ge d c ou ntry co nd it io ns by dem on strat in g o nl y a ch an ge inh[i s] per so na l ci rcu m st an ces .” Id . The BI A nee d n otad dr es s ev ery cl ai m or p ie ce o f ev id en ce p ro ferr edby the pe ti ti on er. Aya la v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 60 5 F .3d94 1, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The BIA h as th e d is cret io n t o re op ena cas e su a s po nt e , bu t i t re se rv es th is po wer as anex tra or di nary rem edy for“ ex cep ti on al si tu at io ns .” In re G-D- , 22 I. & N. Dec. 11 32 , 11 33 -3 4 (B IA 19 99 ); 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(a ). W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d tha t the BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g M art in ez’s m ot io n t o re op enas u nt im el y , as M art in ez fi le d h is m ot io n t o reo pe n o n M ay

2, 2 01 1, m or e th anten y ears aft er the fin al adm in is tra ti ve ord er i n hi s d ep orta ti onpro ceed in gs was i ss ue d o n Dec em be r 30 , 19 96 , andhe di d n ot pr es en t ev id en ce o f ch an ge d c ou ntry co nd it io ns inPeruor s at is fy an y othe r reg ul at ory

ex cep ti onto th e ti m e b ar. INA § 2 40 (c)( 7) (C), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C). Be cau se hi s m ot io n was fil edm or e th an90 day s af te r th e fi na l 3adm in is tra ti ve ord er o f rem ov al , th e m ot io n was un ti m el y . Furthe rm or e,

Marti ne z’s pe rs on al cir cu m st an ces , su chas h is fam il y si tu at io n andlac k o f cri m in al be ha vi or , di d n otsat is fy an y of the reg ul at ory

ex cep ti on s t o the ti m e b ar orjus ti fy gra nt in g the m ot io n. Zh an g , 57 2 F .3dat 1 31 9. Whi le Mart in ez co nt en ds th athe wou ldbe eli gi bl e fo r pr os ecu to ria l di sc ret io n i f hi s m ot io n t o re op enwere g ran te d, an d h e m ak es va gu e ref eren ces to a p res id en ti al ord er ab ou t re op en in g the cas es of a li en s wh o wer e o rd eredde po rte d bu t n otsubjec t t o c riminal pro ceed in gs , he f ai ls to pro vi de a cl ear l eg al ba si s fo r why w e sh ou ldov erturn the BIA’s di sc ret io nary de ni al of h is m ot io n t o re op en . Fi na ll y , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r Marti ne z qua li fie s fo r anad jus tm en t o f st atus , th e BIA h as he ldth ata pe nd in g a dju di cat io n o f a s ta tu s ad jus tm en t ap pl ic at io n b y th e USCIS do es no t warran t the su a s po nt ereo pe ni ng of d ep orta ti onpro ceed in gs , an d e ve n i f itdi d, we l ackjuri sd ic ti onto rev ie w th e BIA’s ref us al to ex erci se it s su a s po nt epo wers to reo pe n apro ceed in g. Mat te r o f Y au ri , 25 I. & N. Dec. 10 3, 11 0- 11 (BIA 2 00 9) ; Len is v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 52 5 F .3d12 91 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Acco rd in gl y , we den y Mart in ez’s p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

4