[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 22 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 79 -3 72 -0 54 NIKOLA DRABEK, a.k .a. Drab ekNik ol a, Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of the Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 0, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-14223 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 1 of 3Nik ol a Drab ek , th ro ug h c ou ns el , see ks rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n App eal s’ (“ BIA”) ord er d en y in g a s u nt im el y an d num be r-b arre d h is sec on d m ot io n to reo pe n b as edup on anin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m . In h is pe ti ti on , Drab ekarg ue s tha t the BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o re op en be cau se hi s co un se l p ro vi de d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enanimm ig rat io n p ro ceed in g fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n, n am el y , whethe r th e BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n an arb itrary or cap ric io us m an ne r. Abdi v. U.S. Att’ y Gen . , 43 0 F .3d11 48 , 11 49 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e rec og ni ze tha t an ali enm ay m ov e to reo pe n h is rem ov al ord er o n the ba si s o f co un se l’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e in th e co nt ex t o f a d ep orta ti on he ari ng . Dak an e v. U.S. At t’yGen. , 39 9 F .3d12 69 , 12 72 -7 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (ad dr es si ng m eri ts of i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e cl ai m wher e p et it io ne r fi le d ati m el y m ot io n t o reo pe n) . Howev er, anali enis ge ne ral ly lim it edto fil in g o ne m ot io n t o re op en rem ov al pro ceed in gs an d m us t fi le itwithi n 9 0 d ay s o f th e d at e o f th e BIA’s fi na l adm in is tra ti ve rem ov al ord er. INA § 2 40 (c)( 7) (A), (C)( i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (A), (C)( i); 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 2) . The 9 0- da y fil in g d ead li ne is

“ m an da to ry

an d juris di ct io na l,” and , th eref or e, no t s ub

ject t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. Se e Abdi , 43 0 F .3dat 1 15 0 & n.2 (fi nd in g n o abu se of d is cret io n i n the BIA’s 2 Case: 11-14223 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 2 of 3de ni al of am ot io n t o re op enba se d o n an i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l cl ai m

be cau se th e m ot io n was ti m e-b arre d, an d thu s, d ecl in in g t o a ddres s i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce cl ai m

an d d eny in g p et it io n) . Ind eed , we hav e d ecl in edto reco gn iz e equi tabl e to ll in g fo r anun ti m el y m ot io n t o re op enba se d upo n i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce o f co un se l, “ ev enwher e anali enact s b lam el es sl y .” Ani n v . Reno , 18 8 F.3 d 1 27 3, 1 27 8- 79 (11 thCir . 19 99 ). It i s u nd is pu te d tha t Drabe k’s s eco ndm ot io n to reo pe n was un ti m el y

an d n um be r-b arre d and , as we h av e n ot ed , we do no t reco gn iz e equi tabl e to ll in g b as edup on in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l as th e st atut ory ti m e li m it at io n i s m an da to ry . Alt ern at iv el y , Drab ekarg ue s tha t the BIA sh ou ldha ve ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io na ry

au th or ity to su a s po nt e reo pe n p ro ceed in gs , eve n tho ug h Drabe k ne ve r reque st edth atth e BIA d o s o. Inres po ns e to our juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on , Drab ekass ert s tha t we h av e juri sd ic ti on ov er the BIA’s de ci si on no t t o re op en pr oc eed in gs su a s

po nt e . Howev er, we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a BIA’s de ni al of a m ot io n t o re op enba se d o n i ts su a s po nt e au th or ity

be cau se 8 C.F .R. § 10 03 .2(a ) pr ov id es no m ean in gf ul st an da rdag ai ns t wh ic h t o ju dg e th e BIA’s ex erci se of i ts di sc ret io n. Len is v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 52 5 F .3d12 91 , 12 92 -9 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). PETI TI ON DIS MIS SED I N PART, DENIED I N PART. 3 Case: 11-14223 Date Filed: 10/10/2012 Page: 3 of 3