[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 94 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -9 20 -9 38 RIGOBERTO AVILA-SANTOYO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

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

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st16 , 20 12 ) Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 1 of 6Ri go be rto Avi la -San to y o, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof M ex ic o, ap pe al s the Bo ard

of Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (BIA’s) o rd er d is m is si ng hi s ap pe al fro m th e Im m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (IJ ’s) de ni al of h is m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs . Avi la -San to y o was ord eredrem ov edpu rs ua ntto a st ip ul at edord er o f rem ov al on Mar ch13 , 20 09 . On Ju ly 19, 2 01 1, h e fi le d an e m erg en cy m ot io n t o re sc in d h is rem ov al ord er an d re op enhi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs . Avi la -San to y o a ss ert s the BIA err edinfin di ng th e IJlac ke d juris di ct io n und er the de pa rtu re b ar t o re op en hi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs , bec au se th e d ep artur e b ar co nf li ct s wi th anali en ’s st atut ory rig htto fil e o ne m ot io n t o re op enpu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(A). He al so arg ue s the BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g, i n the alt ern at iv e, th athi s m ot io n was un ti m el y

an d n otsubjec t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. Fi na ll y , Avi la -San to y o arg ue s we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s ref us al to reo pe n the pro ceed in gs su a s po nt e , andth e BIA erredinrefu si ng to ex erci se it s d is cret io n i n thi s re ga rd be cau se hi s s ti pu la te d o rd er o f rem ov al an d wai ve r of he ari ng was n otkn owi ng , vo lu nt ary, an d i nt el li ge nt , invi ol at io n o f hi s due pro ces s ri gh ts . I. DISCUSSI ON A. Depa rt ur e b ar As an in it ia l m at te r, th is Co urt re cen tl y he ldth at8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (d ), th e

“ de pa rtu re b ar” r eg ul at io n s ta ti ng th e BIA m ay no t en te rta ina m ot io n t o re op en 2 Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 2 of 6fil edby or onbe ha lf o f a p ers on who ha s d ep art edth e Uni te d S ta te s,

im pe rm is si bl y

co nf li ct s wi th anali en ’s st atut ory rig htto fil e o ne m ot io n t o re op en pu rs ua ntto 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(A). Li n v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 68 1 F .3d12 36 , 12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). Thu s, b as edon Li n , th e BIA erredinfin di ng th e IJlac ke d juri sd ic ti on un de r th e d ep artur e b ar i n 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(1 ) to reo pe n Avi la -San to y o’s re m ov al pro ceed in gs . Becaus e th e BIA co rrec tl y di sm is se d h is pe ti ti on on analt ern at e g ro un d, h owe ve r, th is erro r do es no t warran t g ran ti ng Avi la -San to y o’s p et it io n. B. The BIA’s de cisi on th at Avila- Sa nt oy o’

s mo ti on to reo

pe n w as un ti mely Ord in ari ly, anali enwho is subjec t t o afin al ord er o f rem ov al an d wi sh es to reo pe n the pro ceed in gs m ay fil e o ne m ot io n t o re op en . 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(A). The ti m e li m it at io n fo r fi li ng su cha m ot io n v ari es de pe nd in g o n the na tu re o f th e pr oc eed in g the ali ensee ks to reo pe n. 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C). Gen eral ly, a m ot io n t o re op enm

us t b e fi le d wi th in90 day s o f th e d at e o f th e fi na l re m ov al or de r. 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(C) (i) ; 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(1 ). Avi la -San to y o fa il edto m eetth e st atut ory requi rem en ts forfil in g am ot io n to reo pe n. Itis un di sp ut edth atAvi la -San to y o’s m ot io n t o re op enwas n otfil ed withi n the 90 -d ay

ti m e li m it . Thatti m e li m itrun s fo r 90 day s fr om th e d at e o f th e fin al adm in is tra ti ve de ci si on—i n thi s ca se , fro m th e IJ ’s Marc h 1 3, 2 00 9, o rd er o f 3 Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 3 of 6rem ov al . Avi la -San to y o’s m ot io n t o re op enbe fo re the IJ was fil edinJu ly 201 1,

well m or e th an90 day s af te r th e fi na l re m ov al ord er. Acco rd in gl y , th e BIA d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n infin di ng th atAvi la -San to y o’s m ot io n t o re op enwas due 1 to be di sm is se d a s u nt im el y . Furth erm or e, be cau se Avi la -San to y o s ti pu la te d t o h is rem ov al , he was no t rem ov edpu rs ua ntto th e in ab se nt ia pr oc es s s pe ci fic al ly set f orth at 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (b )(5 ). Altho ug h h e cl ai m s tha t h is waiv er o f hi s ri gh t t o arem ov al he ari ng was n otkn owi ng an d i nt el li ge nt , su cha cl ai m , eve n i f true , inno way tra ns fo rm s h is st ip ul at edrem ov al ord er i nt o an in ab se nt ia rem ov al ord er. Avi la San to y o c ou ldha ve rai se d thi s i ss ue ina ti m el y ap pe al to th e BIA o r a t im el y m ot io n t o re op enor r eco ns id er the IJ’s d eci si on . He di d n ot . The fac t tha t h e ch os e n otto ap pe al th e al le ge dl y in va li d re m ov al ord er an d wai ve r, or to m ov e to reo pe n re m ov al pro ceed in gs , do es no t m eanth athe m ay no w arg ue th athe was rem ov ed in ab se nt ia su chth athi s u nt im el y m ot io n t o re op enis ex cu se d. Fi na ll y , bec au se th e 9 0- day pe rio d fo r fi li ng a m ot io n t o re op enbe fo re the BIA “ is m an da to ry

an d juris di ct io na l, an d, the refo re, i s n otsubjec t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g,” th e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g tha t Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s

We reviewthe denial of a motion to reopen r emoval proc eeding s for a n abuse of 1 discretion. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Ge n. , 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 ( 11th Cir. 2009). 4 Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 4 of 6un ti m el y

m ot io n t o re op enwas n otsubjec t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. Abdi v. U.S. Att’ y Gen . , 43 0 F .3d11 48 , 11 50 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). C. Th e BIA’s ref

us al to reo pe n p ro ceedin gs su a sp on te W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enba se d on it s su a s

po nt e au th or ity

be cau se 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (a) p ro vi de s n o 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. Se e Len is v. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 52 5 F .3d12 91 , 12 92 -9 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) . The refo re, we l ack juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f Avi la -San to y o’s m ot io n t o re op enba se d on it s su a s

po nt e au th or ity

pu rs ua ntto 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (a). Se e id. Altho ug h we n ot edin Len is , th at“ anap pe ll at e co urt m ay ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s re la te d t o the BIA’s de ci si on no t t o e xe rci se it s su a sp on te po wer,” co nt rary to Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s as se rti on , th e BIA’s co m m en ts reg ard in g i ts reas on in g fo r de cl in in g t o e xe rci se it s su a s po nt e po wer t o c on si de r hi s ap pe al do no t am ountto “ le ga l” or “ co ns ti tu ti on al reas on in g” so as t o arg uabl y co nf er jur is di ct io n i n thi s ca se . Len is , 52 5 F .3dat 1 29 4 n .7. Av il a-Sa nt oyo as se rts th e BIA d eci de d h is du e p ro ces s cl ai m on th e m eri ts , bas edon th e BIA’s st at em en t tha t i t d is ag reedwith Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s cl ai m th atitwou ldbe “ ex tre m el y un fai r” t o h ol d h im

to th e st ip ul at edord er o f rem ov al . This st at em en t, h owe ve r,

5 Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 5 of 6m erel y

ex pl ai ne d the BIA’s de te rm in at io n tha t Av il a-Sa nt oyo h adno t de m on st rat edan y

ex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces warran ti ng su a s po nt e reo pe ni ng . The refo re, ev enass um in g tha t the Len is rat io na le ha s n o app li cat io n t o the leg al an d c on st itut io na l re as on in g u nd erl y in g the BIA’s refu sa l t o e xe rci se it s su a sp on te au th or ity

to reo pe n re m ov al pro ceed in gs , as Av il a-Sa nt oyo as se rts , th e BIA’s co m

m en ts reg ard in g i ts reas on in g fo r di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al wou ldno t am ountto “ le ga l” or “ co ns ti tu ti on al reas on in g” so as t o c on fer juris di ct io n i n thi s cas e. II. CONCLUSION Altho ug h the BIA erre d i n fi nd in g the IJ l ack edjuri sd ic ti on un de r th e de pa rtu re b ar i n 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .23 (b )(1 ) to reo pe n Av il a-Sa nt oyo’s rem ov al pr oc eed in gs , th e BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g, i n the alt ern at iv e, th at Avi la -San to y o’s m ot io n t o re op enwas due to be di sm is se d b ecau se itwas un ti m el y an d n otsubjec t t o e qu it ab le to ll in g. We di sm is s fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n an y arg um en t co nc ern in g the BIA’s refu sa l t o e xe rci se it s su a s po nt e au th or ity . Acco rd in gl y , we den y

inpart, anddi sm is s i n p art , th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART AND DISMI SSED I N PART.

6 Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 08/16/2012 Page: 6 of 6