P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60717 Su m m ar y Cal endar
DA L I RAMON DAVI LA- CA T I N P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 94 359 567

B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D al iR am on D avil a- C at i n (D avil a) , a n a tive and cit i ze n of N i c ar agua, p e t i t i o n s t h i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w o f

t h e Bo a r do f

I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BIA) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s a s u n tim e ly
. D a v ila
ar gues t hatt he B IAer r ed i n denyi ng hi s m oti on to r eo pen be c ause he has an ab s o l ut e r i gh tt o deno vor e vi e w o f t he de ni alo f

Te m po r ary Pr o t e c t e d St at us (TP S)
. H e f

urt heras se r t s t hatt he m ot i on t o r eo pen w as t i m ely as t o the deni al United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 9, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60717

2 of TP S bec ause he w as notdeni ed TP S u n ti lJ a n uary 8, 2008. H e a r gues t hat th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to re o p e n w o u ldle a dt o a n a b s u r dre s u lt a n dth a t h e is
en t i t l ed to a w aiver f or hi s c on vi ct i on of

m arij u an a possessi on . D avil a al so a rg u es th a t th e d en i a lof h i s m oti on to reop en viol a tedh i s d u e p roce ss righ t t o an adm i ni st ra tive re vi ew of t he deni alof

TP S. The G ove r nm entr es ponds by
ar gui ng t hatt hi s c o ur tl ac ks j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e vi e w t he BI A’ s r e f us alt o g r ant d iscr e tion a ryre li e f. B ec ause D avil a s ee ks r evi ew of t he B IA ’ s s ua spo nt e a ut hor i t y t o de ny a m ot i on t o reopen a n d su ch au t h orit y i s di scr et i on ary, thi s c o urtl ac ks j u ri sdi ct i on to r e v ie w t h e B IA ’ s d e c is io n . S ee R am os- B on i l la v. Mu ka sey , 543 F. 3d 216, 219- 20 (5t h C i r. 200 8)
. D avil a’ s argu m en t t h at h i s du e process ri gh t s w ere vi ol ated b y th e B IA ’ s d en i a lof h i s m oti on to reop en i s u n a va i l i n g. T h ere i s n o lib erty in te r e s t in am o tio n to re o p e n . A l t am i ran o- L opez v. G on zales , 435 F. 3d 547, 550 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). D a vil a ’ s ar gu m en t i n h i s rep l y b ri ef th a t th e B IAi s w i th ou t discreti on to d e n yh is m o t io n to r e o p e n w a s n o tr a is e d b e fo r e th e B IA . L ik e w is e , D a v il a ’s
ar gum e ntt hathi s m o t i o n to r e o pe n was t i m e l y f i l e d was no tr ai s e d b e f o r e t he B IA
. D avil a h as not exha u st ed h i s ad m i n i st rat ive rem edi es. A s such , t h i s c ou rt la c k s ju r i s d i c tio n to co n s id e rth e s e is s u e s . S ee8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d)(1 ); W ang v. A sh cr oft, 2 6 0 F .3 d4 4 8 , 4 5 2 -5 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e p e tit io n is D IS M IS S E D
.