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 una ni 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).

T he H onor abl e D a vi d G . C a m pbe l l , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJudge f or ** * the D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

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 K WO K C H E U N G C H O W, 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 o. 05- 74671 A ge nc yN o. A 035- 708- 186 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n 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 F e bruary8, 2010 ** S an F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : HA LL a n dM c KEOW N, Ci r c u i tJu d g e s , a n dCAM PB EL L, D i stri ct *** Judg e. 

# FI LED FEB 16 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK w ok C he ung C how pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . O ur ju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . O n Jul y 16, 20 02 , an i m m i grat i on j ud ge det erm i ned thatC ho w w as subj ec t t o r e m ova l ba s e d upon C how ’ s a dm i s s i ons a nd hi s r e c or d of c onvi c t i ons . T he i m m i grat i on j ud ge foun d thatthe on l y r el i ef for w hi ch C ho w w as el i gi bl e w as d e f e rr a l o f r e m o v a l u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n a g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) . C how de c l i ne d t o f

i l e the r e qui r e d appl i c a t i on f orC A T r e l i e f

. O n F e bruary14, 2003, the B I A d is m is s e dC h o w ’s ap p e a l f r o m th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n . O n M ay1 6 , 2 0 0 5

— m o r e th an tw o y e ar s la te r— C h o w f ile dam o tio n to r e ope n the pr oc e e di ngs . B e c aus e apa rtym us tm ove t o r e ope n de port a t i on pr oc e e di ngs w i thi n 90 day s of the f i na l a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ng, C how ’ s m ot i on i s t i me - b a rr e d . 8 C. F. R. 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . N o n e th e l e s s , Ch o w a r g u e s th a tth e t i me l i m i tt o fi l e a m o t i o n t o reo p en sh o u l db e equ i t ab l y t o l l edb ecau se h i s du e p ro cess r i ght s w e r e vi ol at e d a tthe r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . T hi s a r gum e nti s pr e s e nt e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l a nd w e do notha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de ri t . S e e B arr on v. A shcr oft , 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ [S ec t i on ] 12 52 (d)( 1) m andat es e xhaus t i on a nd the r e f

or e ge ne r a l l yba r s us , f

orl a c k of

s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on, f r om r e a c hi ng the m e r i t s of al e ga l c l a i m notpr e s e nt e d i n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve p r o c e e d in g s b e lo w .” ) .T o b e s ure, even w i tho utequi t abl e t ol l i ng the B IA has autho ri ty t o “ re op en

or re consi der on i t s ow n m ot i on any c as e i n w hi ch i thas r endered a dec i si on . ” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . B u t th e B I A d e c lin e dto e x e r c is e its s u as p o n te au th o r ity he r e , and w e do notha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w i t s de c i s i on. S e e E ki m i an v. I m m i gr a t i on & N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rv. , 303 F . 3d 1153, 1159 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng th a t e x e r c is e o f

B I A ’s s u as p o n te p o w e rn o t s ub je c t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w ) . F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , C h o w’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI E D.