N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VILM AGLADIS C HAVEZ DE PERDOM O, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-74005 Age n c y No. A088-111-708
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 July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Vilm a Gla dis C have z De Pe rdom o, a native an d

c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions pro se

for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings. Our jurisdiction is gove rne d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a



# F IL ED JUL 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).m otion to re o pe n . Toufighi v. Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing a s untim e ly

C have z De Pe rdom o’ s m otion to re ope n to se e k a djustm e nt of sta t us, whe re she fa ile d to
e sta blish a ny e xc e ption to the

filing de a dline for m otions to re ope n. Se e8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(c )(2) (re quiring motions to re ope n not qua lify ing for a n e xc e ption to
c om ply with thege ne ra l 90-da y filing de a d line ); se e also Toufighi , 538 F.3d a t 993 (noting tha

t a “ m otion to re ope n

to a pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus” is “ still bound by the usua l nine ty -day

de a d l ine for m otions to re ope n” ). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w e ithe r the B IA’ s re fusa l to e xe rc ise its sua spontea uthority to re ope n C hav e z De Pe rdom o ’ s re m ova l proc e e dings, se e Toufighi , 538 F.3d a

t 993 n.8, or C have z De Pe rdom o’ s re que st for prose c utoria l disc re tion, se e V

ilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th C ir. 2012) (orde r). W e a lso la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w C hav e z De Pe rdom o’ s une x ha uste d
re que s t to re ope n

ba se d on c ha

nge d c ountry c onditions. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w le g a l c la im s not pre se nte d in a

n a l ie n’ s a dm i nistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the B IA.” ). In
a ddition, the ne ws a

rtic le tha t C have z De Pe rdom o re fe re nc e s in he r ope ning brie f lie s be y ond thesc ope of our re vie w. Se e C hav e z-Pe re z v . Ashc roft , 386 F.3d 1284,

1 2
- 7 4 0 0 5 21290 n.7 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [W ] e m ay not c o nside r any

inform ation be y ond wha t the B IA ha d be fore it a

t the tim e of its de c i sion.” ). Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to re vie w the im m igration judge ’ s c o nduc t of C have z De Pe rdom o’ s unde rly ing re m ova l he aring be c a u se this pe t ition for re vie w is untime ly

a s to those proc e e dings. Se e Me mbre no v . Gonzale s , 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th C ir. 2005) (e n ba n c ) (re quiring a

ny pe tition for re vie w to be “ file d not late r tha n 30 da y s a fte r the date of the fina l orde r of re m ova l” (c i tation omitte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2
- 7 4 0 0 5 3