N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
IVAN PIERR E B ATINIC , Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-72786 Age n c y No. A011-427-686
M EM O R ANDUM *

IVAN PIERR E B ATINIC , Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-72018 Age n c y No. A011-427-686

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 5, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
JAN 13 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.B e fore : THOM AS and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s , a nd DUFFY, Se nior Distric t Judge
. **
Ivan Pie rre B a t inic pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision va c ating the Im m igrat ion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) a d justm e nt of sta tus a nd the B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to re c onside r. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd the proc e dura l history , we will not re c o unt it he re . W e de ny the pe tition. I The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion or viola t e B atinic ’ s due proc e ss rights by de ny ing his se c ond re que st for a n e xte nsion of time to file his brie f. Notwithsta

nding tha t the B IA re c e ive d B atinic ’ s re que st a fte r the filing de a dline , the B IA a c te d

within its disc

re tion in de ny ing B atinic ’ s re que st. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.3(c )(1) (“ The [B IA] , upon writte n m otion, may e xte nd the pe riod for filing a brie f . . . .” ) (e m

pha sis a dde d). B atinic c annot show tha t the proc e e dings we re funda m e nta lly unfa i r be c a

use the untim e ly

subm ission of his re que st wa s due not to a ny a c tion of theB IA, but ra

the r his own de la

y . Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th C ir. 2010).

** The Honora

ble Ke vin Thom a s Duffy , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion.

- 2-For the sa m e re a sons, we c onc lude tha t the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing his m otion to re c onside r. Se e DeMartine z v . Ashc roft , 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th C i r. 2004) (de sc ribing sta nda rd of re vie w). B a tinic argue s tha

t the B IA e rre d by

finding him

de porta ble unde r form e r Im m i gration a

n d Nationa lity

Ac t (“ INA” ) § 241(a )(4)(A)(i). B atinic fa ile d to ra i se this a rgum e nt to theB IA, a

n d the re fore we la c k jurisdic tion ove r this c la im . 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); Re ndon v
. Muk ase y , 520 F.3d 967, 972 (9th C ir. 2008). II B a tinic c onte nds tha

t the B IA im

prope rly re vie we d the IJ de c ision. TheB IA
re ta ins a uthority to re visit disc re tiona

ry de c isions m a de by

an IJ, suc h a s
a djustm e nt-of-sta

t us de te rm inations. Se e Bazua-C o ta v . Gonzale

s , 466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th C i r. 2006). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w suc h disc re tiona

ry de c isions of the B IA, but we re ta in jurisdic tion ove r issue s of la w a nd c onstitutiona

l c la im s. Ridore v . Holde r , 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th C ir. 2012); 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(C )-(D). The issue s of la

w ra ise d he re we re tha

t the B IA did not a

rtic ulate a sta nda rd of re v ie w a

nd did not a

ppropria te ly e xe rc ise its a

uthority
. “ Whe re the B IA fa ils to follow its own re gula

tions a nd m ake s fa c tua l findings, it c om m its a n e rror of la

w, whic h we have jurisdic tion to c orre c t.” Rodrigue z v . Holde r , 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c i tation omitte d).

- 3-First, the B IA did not pe r se e rr by not sta ting thesta

nda rd of re vie w it use d in re vie wing the IJ de c ision. B a tinic c ite s to, a n d we have found, no a

uthority so holding. Further, the prope r sta nda rds of re vie w to be use d by the B IA are sta

te d in the re l e va

n t re gula tion. 8 C .F.R . § 1003.1(d)(3). Se c ond, the B IA suffic ie ntly e xpla ine d its ra

tiona le for va c ating the IJ’ s
a djustm e nt-of-sta

t us de te rm ination. The B IA ide n tifie d m any of the fa c tors favora ble to B a tinic ’ s c a se , inc luding B at inic ’ s long history of living in the Unite d Stat e s a nd the ha rdship his fa

m ily would sustain if he we re re m ove d. Ne ve rthe le ss, the B IA c onc lude d tha t B atinic ’ s c rim e of se lling prohibite d te c hnology

to the form e r Sovie t Union wa s “ t oo se rious to ove rlook,” whic h it
re a c he d a fte r c hronic l ing a t le ngth B atinic ’ s c rim e an d a gre e ing with the IJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t B a tinic sought to m

inim iz e the se riousne ss of his c rim e . The B IA suffic ie ntly

e xpla i ne d its ra

tiona le , a nd the re is no indic ation tha t it did not
a pply the c orre c t

sta nda rd of re vie w.

PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

- 4-