FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 04 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -6 73 -9 88 JUAN TOMAS MAR TIN, 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 on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ju anTho m as Mart in , a cit iz enof Gu at em al a, pe ti ti on ed pr o s e forrev ie w of

anord er fro m

th e Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s d en y in g h is m ot io n t o re op en rem ov al pro ceed in gs as u nt im el y . InMay 200 6, M art inap pe al edanIm mig rat io n J ud ge ’s dec is io n d eny in g h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m

an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . The BIA subs eque nt ly iss ue d two bri efi ng no ti ces —o ne on Marc h 6 , 20 07 an d o ne on Apri l 5 , 20 07 . The se co ndbri efi ng no ti ce ex te nd edth e in it ia l b rie fin g d ead li ne fro m Marc h 2 6, 2 00 7 to Apri l 2 6, 2 00 7. Whe n M art infai le d t o re sp on d t o e ithe r no ti ce, the BIA di sm is se d h is ap pe al as m oo t, b ecau se Mart in ha d app aren tl y ab an do ne d the m at te r. On No ve m

be r 1, 2 01 0, M art infil eda pr o s e m ot io n t o re op enth e pr oc eed in gs with the BIA. The B IA de ni edMart in ’s m ot io n t o re op enas un ti m el y , no ti ng th atMart infai le d t o s at is fy an y of the ex cep ti on s t o the ti m el y fil in g re qu ire m en t u nd er 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) an d 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(c )(2 ). The BIA al so fou ndno ex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces warran ti ng reo pe ni ng of t he pr oc eed in gs su a sp on te . Marti n app eal s thi s d et erm in at io n. On ap pe al , Mart iness en ti al ly argu es th atth e BIA’s d is m is sa l o f hi s ap pe al as ab an do ne d v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts , bec au se he su ffi ci en tl y st at edhi s ba si s fo r ap pe al inhi s n ot ic e o f ap pe al , andbe cau se hi s i ll it erac y pre ve nt edhi m fro m un de rs tand in g the bri efi ng no ti ces . Mart in als o c on te nd s tha t h e 2de m on st rat edex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is m ot io n t o

reo pe n. W e rev ie w each arg um en t i n turn. As an in it ia l m at te r, th is Co urt l ack s juris di ct io n t o re vi ew BIA d eci si on s, un le ss a pe ti ti on forrev ie w is fil edwithi n thi rty days of the fin al ord er o f rem ov al . 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (A), (b )(1 ); Da ka ne v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 3 99 F.3d12 69 , 12 72 n. 3 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Here, the BIA d is m is se d M art in ’s app eal as aba nd on edon Sep te m be r 18 , 20 07 . Marti n d idno t ap pe al th atde te rm in at io n u nt il th is y ear. Thi s b ei ng th e cas e, we la ckjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on to di sm is s th e ap pe al , andth eref

or e d is m is s an y

ch al le ng es to th e BIA’s Sep te m be r 18 , 20 07 de ci si on , in cl ud in g M art in ’s du e p ro ces s cl ai m s b as edonth e su ffi ci en cy of h is ba si s fo r ap pe al an d h is il li te racy. Thi s C ou rt a ls o l ack s juris di ct io n t o re vi ew th e BIA’s ref us al to ex erci se it s s uasp on te po wers to reo pe n apro ceed in g. Len is v. U.S. Att ’y

Gen., 5 25 F.3d12 91 , 12 94 (11 thCir . 20 08 ). W e th eref or e d is m is s an y ch al le ng es un de r th e BIA’s s uasp on te po wer. As a re su ltof the li m it s o n o urjuri sd ic ti on , we m us t l im itou r rev ie w to whe th er the BIA was requi redby statut e to gra ntMart in ’s m ot io n t o re op en . “ W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enforab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Ali v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 43 F.3d80 4, 8 08 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g M art in ’s un ti m el y m ot io n 3to reo pe n h is rem ov al pro ceed in gs un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) . In g en eral , an

al ie n m ay fil e o ne m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs , pro vi de d tha t the m ot io n is fil edwithi n n in ety

day s o f a fi na l ad m in is tra ti ve ord er o f rem ov al . 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( i). Ho wev er, the re i s n o t im e li m itform ot io ns to reo pe n a sylum pr oc eed in gs “ba se d o n c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s ar is in g i n the co un try of na ti on al ity

or the 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 othave be endi sc ov eredor p res en te d a t th e p rev io us pro ceed in g.” Id. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (ii ). A chang e in pe rs on al ci rcu m st an ces do es no t s at is fy th e requi rem en ts of c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s. Ji an g v . U.S. Att’y

Gen., 5 68 F.3d12 52 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Marti n fa il edto pre se ntany ne w evi de nc e o f ch an ge d c on di ti on s i n Gua te m al a to supp ort h is un ti m el y m ot io n t o re op enun de r § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( ii ). Whi le we reco gn iz e th e d iff ic ul ty of Marti n’s p ers on al si tu at io n a s a f athe r of fou r ch il dr en , itdo es no t warran t re li ef fro m th e n in ety -d ay

st atut ory li mit . See J iang , 56 8 F .3dat 1 25 8. PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART, DENIED I N PART.

4