N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ER IC K OSWALDO OSORIO LIM A,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-73555 Age n c y No. A072-536-295 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Eric k Oswa ldo Osorio Lima , a native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his motion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED DEC 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1252. W e re vie wfor a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n, a

nd re vie w de novo c la i m s of due proc e ss viola tions a nd que stions of la

w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa rt a n d dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion or viola te due proc e ss in de ny ing Osorio Lim a ’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly . Osorio Lima file d his m otion m ore tha n 17 y e ars a fte r his fina l orde r of re m ova l, a nd the re c ord re fle c t s tha

t he wa s pe rsona lly

se rve d the Notic e of He aring, whic h c onta i ne d the date and loc ation of his June26, 1995 he aring. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(1) &(b)(4)(iii)(A)(2); 8 U.S.C . § 1252b(a)(2)(A) (1994) (notic e of he aring sha ll be give n in pe rson or, if pe rsona l se rvic e is not pra c t ic a ble , se nt by

c e rtifie d m a il); Matte r of M-S- , 22 I. & N. De c . 349, 356-57 (B IA 1998) (a m otion to re o pe n a

n in a bse ntia orde r to a

pply for ne w form s of re lie f is subje c t to the90-da y m otion to re ope n de a dline ); Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror a nd pre j udic e to pre va il on due proc e ss c la im ). Osorio Lim a ’ s c o nte ntion tha t the a ge nc y

re lie d on fa c tua l a

nd le ga l e rrors in de ny ing the m otion is not supporte d by the re c ord. Osorio Lim a ’ s c o nte ntion tha t the a ge nc y

viola te d due proc e ss by

de ny ing his m otion be fore he c o uld file supple m e nta l doc um e ntation fa ils for la c k of 1 3 - 7 3 5 5 5 2pre

j udic e , whe re he did not repre se nt wha t e vide nc e he inte nde d to submit. Se e Lata at 1246. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Osorio Lim a ’ s une xha uste d c onte ntion re ga rding his e ligibility

for an I-130 visa

pe tition. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (this c ourt la c ks jurisdic t ion to c o nside r c la im s not ra ise d be fore the a ge nc y in a dm inistra tive proc e e dings). In light of our disposition, we do not re a c h Osorio Lima ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions re g arding his prima fa c ie e ligibility

for re lie f. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 3 5 5 5 3