N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALEJANDR O LUEVANO-ZAPATA Pe titione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, ATTOR NEY GENER

AL R

e sponde n t . No. 14-71870 B IA No. A088-447-602
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s Subm itte d August 15, 2017** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd EZR A ,*** Distric t Judge
. Ale ja ndro Lue va

no-Za p a ta (“ Pe titione r” ) se e ks re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) de c ision dism issing his a

ppe a l of the de nia l of his 

# F IL ED SEP 08 2017 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 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.m otion to re o pe n a n i n abste ntia re m ova l orde r, the latte r of whic h wa s e nte re d
a fte r Pe titione r fa ile d to a p p e ar a t a sc h e dule d

re m o v a l he aring. In his pe t ition for
re vie w to this C ourt, Pe titione r ra ise s two issue s: (1) whe the r the B IA e rre d in finding tha

t his m o t ion to re ope n the lat e arriva l c la im wa s untim e ly ; a

nd (2) whe the r the B IA e rre d in de te rm ining, re ga rdle ss of the tim e line ss of Pe titione r’ s m otion, tha

t he fa ile d to a

ppe ar. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(1). W e de ny

Pe titione r’ s pe tition for re vie wan d a ffirm the B IA’ s de c ision. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s of the c a se , we do not re c ite the m e xc e pt to thee xte nt ne c e ssa ry to a id in unde rsta

nding this disposition. W e
re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n a

nd re sc ind for a

buse of disc re tion. Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005). TheB IA a buse s its disc re tion “ whe n it a c ts ‘ arbitra rily , irrationa lly , or c ontra ry to the la w.’ ” Mov sisian
v . Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005) (quoting Laine z-Ortiz v . I.N

.S. , 96 F.3d 393, 395 (9th C ir. 1996)). R e ga rdle ss of the tim e line ss of Pe titione r’ s m o t ion, the B IA, proc e e ding to the m e rits of the c la im , did not e rr in finding tha t Pe titione r fa ile d to a

ppe ar. To de te rm i ne whe t

h e r a pe titione r fa ile d to a

ppe ar, we look to whe the r the Im m i gration Judgewa s still on the be nc h whe n

the late pe titione r arrive d. Se e ,

- 2-e .g. , Pe re

z v . Muk ase y , 516 F.3d 770, 774–75 (9th C i r. 2008); Vale nc ia-Fragoso v
. I.N .S. , 321 F.3d 1204, 1205 (9th C ir. 2003) (pe r c uriam ); J e re zano v . I.N

.S. , 169 F.3d 613, 615 (9th C ir. 1999). He re , the B IA c orre c t ly

de te rm ine d tha

t Pe titione r fa ile d to a

ppe ar be c a

use , while Pe titione r produc e d e v i de nc e tha t he arrive d to his he a

ring a pproxim ate ly 45 m inute s la

te , he wa s una

ble to e sta

blish tha t the Im m igration Judgewa s still on the b e nc h whe n he arrive d. In fa c t, Pe titione r c onc e de s tha t the c ourtroom

door
wa s loc ke d whe n

he arrive d. Ac c ordingly , the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to re ope n the in abse ntia re m ova l orde r be c a use the B IA c orre c tly de te rm i ne d tha

t Pe titione r fa ile d to a

ppe ar. Thus, theB IA’ s dism issa l of Pe titione r’ s a

ppe a l wa s prope r, re ga

rdle ss of the tim e line ss of Pe titione r’ s m otion to re ope n. For the se re a sons, theB IA’ s de c ision is AFFIRM E D and Pe titione r’ s pe tition for re vie w is DE NIE D.

- 3-