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 unani 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). 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 V IC T O RH ID A L G O -JA R Q U IN , a. k. a. V i c t orM anue l H i da l go- J a qui n, 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. 09- 72043 A ge nc yN o. A 040- 199- 424 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an 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 S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B e f o r e : S I L V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U I A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . V i ct o r H i d al g o -Jarq u i n , a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f N i carag u a, p et i t i o n s p ro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order s um m ar i l y a ff i rm i ng an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s r e mo v a l o r d e r . O u rj u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U . S. C. § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the deni alof a m ot i on for a 

# FI LED OC T 6 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72043 2 c o n tin u an c e , A hm ed v. H older , 569 F . 3d 1009, 1012 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , and r e vi e w de n o v o c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s , Kha n v. H older , 5 8 4 F .3 d7 7 3 , 7 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . W e d e n yi n p artan dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e ag en cy d i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g H i d al g o -Jarq u i n ’ s req u est f o rac o n tin u an c e , w h e r e H id a lg o - J ar qu in h a da lr e a d yr e c e iv e dm u ltip le c o n tin u an c e s an dth e d e layc au s e din c o n v e n ie n c e to th e a g e n c y . See A hm ed , 569 F .3 da t 1 0 1 3 - 1 4 ; cf

. Cuiv. Mukasey , 5 3 8 F .3 d1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 3 - 9 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . H i dal go -J ar qu i n’ s e qu alprot ec t i on ar gu m entre gardi ng w ai vers un der 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( h ) is u n av a ilin g . Se e T a n ig u c h i v . Sc h u ltz , 3 0 3 F .3 d9 5 0 , 9 5 8 ( 9 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) (h o l d i n g th ata rat i o n al b asi s ex i st s fo r ex cl u d i n g p erm an en tresi d en t s, as “ aggravat ed fe l on L P R s c ou l d b e vi ew ed as l es s des ervi ng of a ‘ se cond chance’ th an n o n - L P R s ” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . In hi s openi ng bri ef

, H i dal go -J ar qu i n fai l s t o add re ss , and there fore has w a i ve d anyc ha l l e nge t o, the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha thi s c onvi c t i on f or p o s s e s s io n o f

ac o n tr o lle ds ub s tan c e f o rs a le u n d e rC a lif

o rn iaH e a lth & S a f

e ty Co d e § 1 1 3 7 8 c o n s t i tu t e s ad ru g tr a f f i c k i n g a g g r av a t e df

e l o n yu n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) , r e n d e r in g h im r e m o v ab le u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) . See Kum ar v. G on zales , 444 F . 3d 1043, 1055 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( “ [ W ] e w i l l not09- 72043 3 ordi nari l y c on si der m att er s on app ea l thatar e notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y argued in ap p e llan t’s o p e n in g b r ie f .” ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H id a lg o - J ar qu in ’s c o n te n tio n th a t ap p lic a tio n o f th e g r o u n d s o f

r e m o v ab ility to h im is av io la tio n o f

s ub s tan tiv e du e p r o c e s s , in lig h t o f th e e qu itie s p r e s e n t in h is c a s e , is u n av a ilin g . See P ad i l la-P ad i l la v. G on zales , 4 6 3 F .3 d9 7 2 , 9 7 8 - 7 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2006) ( “ [ O ] urc a s e s have l ong r e c ogni z e d the pow e rt o e xpe l ore xc l ude a l i e ns as a f un dam ent alsovere i gn attribu t e e xerc i se d b y the G ov ernm ent ’ s pol i t i ca l de partm e nt s l ar ge l yi m m une f r om j udi c i a l c ontr ol . ” ) ( c i t a t i on and quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . H i da l go- J ar qui n’ s c ont e nt i on tha tappl i c a t i on of the gr ounds of r e m o v ab ilityto h im v io la te s in te rn a tio n a l law is lik e w is e u n av a ilin g . Se e id . at 9 7 9 - 9 9 . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons r a i s e d by H id a lg o - J ar qu in in h is o p e n in g b r ie f , a s th e yw e r e n o t p r e s e n te dto th e a g e n c y . See B a rr o n v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 7 - 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s “m o tio n to s tr ik e n e w e v id e n c e s ub m itte dw ith p e titio n e r ’s o p e n in g b r ie f ” is g r an te d . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(4)(A ) ( “ [T ] he court of appe a l s s ha l l de c i de the pe t i t i on onl yon the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e c or d on w hi c h the o r d e ro f r e m o v a l is b a s e d .” ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.