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 una ni 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 EL VI FR AN CI SC A REAL, 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. 11- 72306 A ge nc yN o. A 093- 278- 161 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n 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 J anua ry15, 2013 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , B E A , an dN G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E l vi F r anc i s c aR e a l , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) deci si on denyi ng her m ot i on t o reopen rem ov al p r o c e e d in g s c o n du c te din ab s e n tia . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED JAN 16 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 72306 2 § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n, a nd r e v ie w d e n o v o c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 9 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yi n p arta n 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 he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng R ea l ’ s m ot i on t o reopen as unt i m e l yw he r e i tw a s f i l e d one and aha l f

y e ar s a f t e rthe da t e of

he ror de rof r e m o v a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( an a l i e n s e e ki ng t o r e ope n and r e s c i nd an i n abs e nt i ar e m ova l or de rba s e d on e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t anc e s m us tf i l e the m o tio n w ith in 1 8 0 d ay s a f te rth e d a te o f

th e r e m o v a l o r d e r ) , an dR e a l f a ile dto s h o w th e du e d ilig e n c e r e q u ir e df o re q u itab le to llin g o f

th e f ilin g d e a d lin e , se e A vagyan v. H

older , 646 F . 3d 672, 679- 80 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( e q u itab le to llin g is avai l abl e t o a pet i t i on erw ho es t abl i shes dece pt i on , fr aud o r e rr or, and exerci se d du e di l i gence i n d i sc ov er i ng such ci rc um st ance s) . I tf ol l ow s tha tthe B I A di d notvi ol a t e R e a l ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s byde ny i ng th e m o tio n . Se e La ta v . I NS , 204 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( r e qui r i ng e rr or and p re j ud i ce t o p re vai l on a due process cl ai m ). I n he rope ni ng br i e f

, R e a l f a i l s t o r a i s e , a nd the r e f

or e ha s w a i ve d, a ny c ha l l e nge r e gar di ng l a c k of not i c e of

he rhe ar i ng and s t a tut oryi ne l i gi bi l i tyf or c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See R i

zk v. H o lder, 62 9 F . 3d 10 83 , 10 91 n. 3 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( a pet i t i on erw ai ves an i ss ue by fa i l i ng t o rai se i ti n the op eni ng bri ef ).11- 72306 3 W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew R ea l ’ s c on t ent i on thatthe abse nce of a c o m p le te tr an s c r ip t o f

th e p r o c e e d in g s b e f

o r e th e I Jv io la te dh e rdu e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b e c au s e s h e f

a ile dto r a is e th is c o n te n tio n b e f o r e th e a g e n c ya n dth e r e b yf a ile dto e x h au s t h e ra d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 358 F . 3d 674, 678 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( thi s c ou rtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew cont ent i on s notra i se d b ef ore th e a g e n c y ) . R e a l ’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons a r e una va i l i ng. 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.