Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60766 S u m m ary C al en da r
AU G U STO RA M O N

- SAN CH EZ P et i t i on er v. ERI C H HOLDER, J R, U S AT TORNEY GENERAL R esp on d en t

P e tition forR e v iew of a n O rd e r o f th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

N o. A 39 298 885
B ef ore K IN G , D AV IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * A u gu st o R am on - S an chez , a na t ive an d ci t i zen of M exi co, petit i on s f or a revi ew of

t h e deci si on of

t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s, d en yi n g h i s m ot i on t o r e open h i s a dm i ni s t r at ivec as e b as e d o n l ac k o f j ur i s di c t i o n pu r s uantt o t he

“ post- dep art u re bar” of 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1003
. 2( d). R am on argu es th at th e B IAerr ed i n denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o r eo pen orr ec ons i derhi s c as e f oll ow i ng Lo

p ezv. G on zales , 5 4 9 U .S . 4 7 (2 0 0 6 ), w h ic h h e a r g u e s o v e r r u le dth e le g a l b a s is fo rh is United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Janua ry 6, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60766

2 rem oval f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates. F o r th e f ol l ow i n g reasons, t h e petit i on f or r e v ie w is d e n ie d
. BA CK GRO UND Ram o n was a dm i t t e d t o t he U ni t e d St at e s a s al awf ulpe r m ane ntr e s i de nt i n Apr i l1 98 6. I n N o ve m be r200 1, Ram o n was c o nvic t e d o f po s s e s s i o n o f

c o c ai ne i n Te xa s s t at e c o ur t , a nd he s ubs e que nt l y de pa r t e d the U ni t e d St at e s . I n J une 200 4 R am on att em pted t o reentert h e U n ited S ta t es, bu tt h e D epa rt m en tof H o m e la n dS e c u r ity(D H S ) s e rv e dR a m o n w ith aN o tic e to A p p e a r , ch a r g in gh im as i n ad m i ssibl e t o t h e U n it ed S t ates basedon h i s c on vi ct i on f or a c on t roll ed su b sta n ce offe n se . IN A§ 2 1 2 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II); 8U .S .C
. § 1 1 8 2 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II). I n Augus t2 00 4, Ram o n a ppe ar e d b e f o r e a n I m m i grati o n J udg e (I J) a nd a d m itt e da lie n a g e , b u t h e d e n ie dt h e c h a r g e o f r e m o v a b ilityo n th e b a s is o f h is controll ed su bstance convi ct ion
. Th e I J i n i t i al l y f ou n d that t h e D H S ha d n ot p rod u cedsu ff

i ci en t do cu m en tati on of R a m on ’ s p ri or co n victi on , bu t th e IJ gr ant e d the D H S ac o nt i nuan c e t o o bt ai n ev i de nc e of Ram o n’ s 2 00 1 c o nvic t i o n. Af t e rt he D H S pr o duc e d c e r t i f i ed c o pi e s o f

Ram o n’ s c o nvic t i o n, t he I J f o und R a m o n re m o v a b le a s ch a r g e db a s e do n h is co n v ic tio n fo rco c a in e p o s s e s s io n . F ol l ow i n g t h i s f

i n di n g, R am on m ad e an app l i cat i on f or c an cell ati on of rem ovalor , al t er nat ively, t er m i nat i on o f hi s r em ovalpr oc ee di ngs. The IJ c o nc l ude d that Ram o n w as s t at ut o r i l y i ne l i gibl e f o rc anc e l l at i o n o f

r e m o va la nd t hus pr et er m i t t ed hi s r eques tf orr eli ef
. I n an or aldec i si on on Sept em ber21, 2 0 0 4 , th e IJ fo u n dth a t R a m o n ’ s c o c a in e p o s s e s s io n c o n v ic tio n w a s p u n is h a b le und erthe C ont r oll ed Subst ance s A c tand a f el ony underTexas l aw . Acc or di ngl y, t he I J r ul ed thatR am on’ s c onvi c t i on qual if i ed as an aggr avat ed f el ony, r e n d e r in gR a m o n in e lig ib le fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. S ee IN A§ 2 4 0 A (a)(3); 8 U .S .C
. § 1 2 2 9 b (a)(3). R am on t h en f

i l ed a n ot i ce of

app ealw i t h t h e B oard of I m m i grati on A p p ea l s ( B IA) on S ep tem b er 2 2 , 20 0 4 , an do n F e b ru a ry28 , 20 0 5 , the B IAN o. 08- 60766

3 af f i rm ed the IJ’ s deci si on w i t h ou topi n i on . R am on t h en petit i on ed thi s c ou rtf or rev i ew , a n don Ju n e 2 , 20 0 5 , w e g ra n tedthe A ttorn eyG en era l ’ s m oti on to d is m is s . R am on - S an chez v. G on zales , N o . 0 5 -6 0 1 9 4 (5t h C ir. J u n . 2 , 2 0 0 5 ), R a m o n th e n d e p a r te dth e U n ite dS ta te s p u r s u a n t t o th e o r d e ro f r e m o v a l. Subs e que ntt o Ram o n’ s de pa rt u r e , t he Supr e m e Cour tde c i de d Lopezv. G on zales , inw h ic h th e C o u r t h e ldt h a tafir s t-t im e co n v ic tio n fo rs im p le pos se ss i on o f

dr ugs t hati s nei t heran il l i c i tt r af f i c ki ng of

fens e no ra f

ede r al fel ony doe s not c ons t i t ut e an aggr avat ed f el ony f ori m m i gr at i on purpo se s. 549 U .S . a t 5 3

– 5 7 ; seealso O valles v. Hold er , 577 F. 3d 288, 291 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( di sc uss i ng L opez v. G on zales)
. B ased on t h i s deci si on , R am on f i l ed a m ot i on on June5 , 2 00 8, ar gui ng t hat t he BI A sh o ul d suasponte r e o p e n o rre c o n s id e rh is c a s e b e c a u s e h is s itu a tio n w a s s u b s ta n tia ll ys i m ila rto th e o n e p r e s e n te din L opez v. G on zales . N ot w i t h st an di n g t h i s requ est , t h e B IA den i ed R am on ’ s m ot i on f or l ack of ju r is d ic t io n o n J u ly1 7 , 2 0 0 8 . P a r t ic u la r l y , th e B IAd e t e r m in e dth a tR a m o n ’s m oti on m u st be de n i edbe ca u se h i s m oti on w a s u n ti m ely fil edan dthe B IA l acked j u ri sdi ct i on t o su asp o n ter eo pen orr ec ons i derR am on’ s c as e a f t erhe had b e e n re m o v e dto M e x ico
. T h e B IAb a se dits d e cisio n on 8 C .F .R
. § 1 0 0 3 .2 (d ), w h i ch provides i n rel evan tpart: “Am ot i on t o reopen or a m ot i on t o rec on si der s hallno tb e m ad e b y or on b eh al f o f ape r s o n who i s t he s ubj e c to f e xc l us i o n, de po r t at i o n, o rr e m o va lpr o c e e di ngs s ubs e que ntt o hi s o rhe rde pa r t ur e f r o m t he U n i tedS tates.” R a m on the n tim e lyf i l eda p eti ti on f

or re view w i ththis cou rt. I n t hi s pe t i t i o n, Ram o n a dm i t s t hathi s a ppli cat i on is unt i m e l y andt hathe c u r r e n tlyre s id e s inM e x ic o . DI S CU S S I ON Th e ce nt r ali ss ue i n t hi s c as e i s w hethert he B IAer r ed i n det er m i ni ng t hat i tl acks j u ri sdi ct i on t o suasponte gr a n t a rem ov eda lie n ’ s u n ti m ely m oti on to r e c o n s id e ro rre o p e n h i s c a s e , w h e n th e u n d e r ly in gle g a l b a s is fo rre m o v a l isN o. 08- 60766

4 l at e rde t e r m i ne d t o b e e r r o ne o us . W e r e c e nt l y c o nf r o nt e d thi s i s s ue i n O valles an d h el d that t h e B IAdi d not err i n determ i n i n g t h at itdi d n otha ve j u ri sdi ct i on t o r e o pe n o rr e c o ns i de rs uc h ac as e b e c aus e 8 C
. F. R. § 1 00 3. 2( d) l i m i t e d the B IA ’ s su asp o n tea ut ho r i t y t o r e c o ns i de ro rr e o p e np r o c e e di ngs o f pe t i t i o ne r s w ho hadde pa r t e d the U ni t e d St at e s , no t w i t hs t and i ng t he c hang e i n t he und e r l yi ng le g a l b a s is fo rre m o v a l. 5 7 7 F .3 da t 3 0 0 . I n O valles , O vall es, a l aw f u lperm an en tres i den t , w a s con vi ct ed of a tt e m p te dp o s s e s s io n o f d r u g s inO h io s ta te co u r t. I d. a t 2 9 1 . A s a r e s u lt o f th is c o n v ic tio n , O v a lle s w a s ch a r g e da s re m o v a b le
. Id
. Foll o w i ng t hi s c h arge, O v a lle s m a d e a n a p p lic a tio n fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. Id
. T h e I J gra n ted O val l es ’ s appl i c at i on, buton appe alt o the B IA , t he B IAhel d, on M ar c h 8, 2004, t hatOva l l e s ’ s c o nv i c t i o n was a n a g g r a v a t e dfe l o ny , a ndt he r e f o r e Ova l l e s w as in e lig ib le fo rc a n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. Id
. O vall es w as r em ove d t o the D om i ni c an R e p u b lico n A p r il 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 . I d. Foll o w i ng t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n L opez v. G on zales , O vall es f i l ed a m ot i on w i t h t h e B IAon Ju l y 27, 200 7, t o su asp o n tere c o n s id e ro rr e o p e n h is case, argu i n g t h at th e S u prem e C ou rt ’ s deci si on un derm i n ed the l egal basi s f or h is re m o v a l. I

d. H o w e ve r , t he B IA r e f us e d t o co ns i de rO va l l e s ’ s m o t i o n o n t he basi s of 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1003
. 2( d) becau se th e B IAconcl u dedt h at th e post
- dep art u re bar em bod i ed i n t h at s ect i on overrode it s authori t y t o su asp o n tereop e n or r e c o n s id e rO v a lle s ’ s ca s e . I d. O n p eti ti on for rev i ew to t h i s cou rt, w e rev i ew edthe B IA ’ s d ecisi on n ot to r e o pe n o rr e c o ns i de rO va l l e s ’ s c as e b as e d o n it s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f t he s t at ut e a nd r e g u la tio n s a s aq u e s tio n o f l a w . I d. Af t err evi ew i ng O vall es ’ s var i ous l egal c hall e nge s , w e c o nc l ude d thatt he BI A’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hat§ 1 00 3. 2( d) o ve r r o de i t s suasponte au t h orit y t o rec on si der or r eopen O vall es’ s c ases w as reasonab l e; t hatt he po s t
- de pa r t ur e b aro f § 1 00 3. 2( d) w as i nt e nde d t o a pp l y t o a l i e ns w ho de pa r tt he co unt r y f

o l l o w i ng t e r m i nat i o n o f pr o c e e di ngs s uc h t hatt he a pplyi ngN o. 08- 60766

5 t hi s se c t i on i n O val l es ’ s c as e w as not“ arbi t r ar y and c apr i c i ous ; ” and t hat O vall es’ s du e process ri gh t s w ere not vi ol ated by the B IA ’ s deci si on n ot t o reopen o rre c o n s id e rh is ca s e . Id
. a t 29 9

– 3 0 0 . S p ecif i ca l l y, rega rd i n g th e a p p l i ca b i l i ty § 1 00 3. 2( d) t o O va l l e s ’ s c as e , w e s t at e d:

. . . tha t th e p ost-de p a rtu re b a r onm oti on s to reco n sideran dto r e o pe n a ppli e s a nd was i nt e nde d t o apply t o al i e ns w ho dep ar tt he coun t ry f

ol l o w in gt h e t erm i n ati on of t h ei r r em oval proceedi n gs. T h ere fore, th e B IA d i d n ot a ct a rb i trarily an d ca p ri ci ou sly in appl yi ng se c t i on 1003. 2( d) toO vall es , despit e t he fac tt hatt he l egal b a s is fo rh is re m o v a l w a s la te rd e te r m in e dto b e e r r o n e o u s a n dh is r e m o va lpr o c e e di ngs w e r e c o nc l ude d a t t he t i m e he f i l e d hi s m o t i o n. Id
. at 298 (f

oot n ot e callom i t t ed). A ccor di n gl y, w e d en i ed O vall es’ s pet i t i on f or r e v ie w . Id
. a t 3 0 0 . H ere , R a m on si m i l a rl y u rg es th a t th e B IA erre d i n de n yin g h i s m oti on to su asp o n tereopen or rec on si der h is ca se based on t h e procedu ralbar of § 100 3. 2( d). H ow ever, R am on ’ s s i t u ati on i s i n di st i n gu i sha bl e f rom t h e sit u ati on pr e s e nt e d i n O valles : R am on d epa rt ed t h e U n i t ed S t ates f ol l ow i n g t h e den i alof h i s ap pl i cat i on f

or c an cell ati on of

rem oval an d l aterfil ed an u n t i m el y petit i on to reo p en or reco n side rh i s ca se, a rg u i n g th a t L opez v. G on zalesc hang e d the l egal basi s f

or r em oval, an d th e B IAsi m i l arl y den i ed R am on ’ s m ot i on t o reopen o rre c o n s id e rb a s e do n th e § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( d) p o s t-d e p a r tu r e b a r . A s s u c h , O valles c o n tr o ls o u rd e c is io n , a n dw e a c c o r d in g lyco n c lu d e th a t t h e B IAd idn o t e r rin determ i n i n g t h at itl acked ju ri sdi ct i on t o suasponte reopen or reconsi der R a m o n ’ s ca s e b a s e do n th e § 1 0 0 3 .2 (d) p o s t-d e p a r tu r e b a r . CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED
.