N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AGNES ELIESJEAN ZAINI, Pe titioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 07-72310 Age n c y No. A071-808-749 M EM O R ANDUM *

AGNES ELIESJEAN ZAINI, Pe titioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 09-72337 Age n c y No. A071-808-749

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 3, 2012 Subm i ssion Va c ate d De c e m be r 18, 2012 Subm itte d August 6, 2013 

# FIL ED AUG 06 2013 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.Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Pe titioner, Agne s Elie sje an Za ini, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA)’ s orde rs de ny ing he r m otion to re o pe n, m otion to re c o nside r, and m otion to re ope n sua sponte . W e de ny the pe t ition in pa

rt a nd dism iss in pa

rt. Za ini is a n e thnic a lly C hine se c itiz e n of Indone sia and a pra c tic ing C hristia n. In 1999, shea

pplie d for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion under the C onve ntion Against Torture . He r a pplic ations we re de nie d, a nd she wa s gra

nte d volunta ry de pa rture . Zaini v . Ashc roft , 113 F. App’ x 785, 786-87 (9th C i r. 2004). In De c e m be r 2006, Za ini file d

an Em e rge nc y

M o tion to Re ope n a

nd R e m and & M otion for Sta

y be fore the B IA. She c l a im e d tha t she wa s e ligiblefor a sy lum and withholding of rem o v a l on theba sis of c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions in Indone sia , a s we ll a s for a djustm e nt of sta tus a s a be ne fic ia ry of he r U.S. c i tiz e n son. TheB IA de nie d the m otion in M ay 2007. Za ini the n file d a

M otion to Re c onside r or in the Alte rnative M o tion to Re ope n Sua Sponte in Ja

nua ry 2008, a ga i n a

rguing tha

t she qua lifie d for a djustm e nt of sta tus through her son. TheB IA de nie d those a lte rnative m otions in June 2009. Za i ni tim e ly

pe titione d for re vie w of the B IA’ s orde rs, whic h we c onsolida te d for re vie w.1. The B IA did not a b use its disc re t ion in de ny ing Za ini’ s m otion to re ope n to a p ply for a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l. B e c a

use Za ini did not file

he r m otion to re o pe n w i thin 90 da y s of the fina l orde r of re m ova l, she ha d to submit e vide nc e of c ha

nge d c ountry c onditions tha t wa s “ m ate ria l and wa s not a va ila ble and would not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the pre vious proc e e ding.” 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(ii). The B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t Za ini fa ile d to m ak e suc h a showing wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in there c ord. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 989-90 (9th C ir. 2010). 1 2. The B IA a lso did not a buse it disc re tion in deny ing Za ini’ s m otion to re ope n to se e k a djustm e nt of sta tus. W he re the re is “ no disputetha t [the ] m otion to re ope n wa s file d a fte r the pe riod for volunta ry de pa rture [ha s ] e la

pse d,” the B IA is

“ not sim ply c orre c t to de ny

the m otion [to re ope n] ,” but a c t ua lly “ c om

p e lle d to do so” unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229c (d)(1)(B ). Granados-Ose gue ra v . Muk

ase y , 546 F.3d 1011, 1015 (9th C ir. 2008) (pe r c uriam ). This is true e ve n if, a s Za ini a

rgue s, he r a ppe a l of the IJ’ s de c ision c onstruc tive ly withdre w he r volunta

ry de pa rture . Se e , e .g. , Toufighi v . Muk

ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 993 (9th C ir. 2007) (e xpla ining tha t

1 Za ini a lso a

rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d by

sta ting tha t she ha d “ fa ile d to subm it the re q

uire d a sy lum

a pplic ation.” Se e8 C . F.R

§ 1003.2(c )(1). Whe the r or not this sta

te m e nt wa s m a de in e rror, it wa s not oneof the ba se s on whic h the B IA de nie d he r m o tion to re ope n. 3be c a

use Toufighi misse d the nine ty -day de a d l ine to filea

m otion to re ope n ,

“ Toufighi’ s m o t ion to re o pe n to a pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus wa s prope rly

de nie d re ga rdle s s of whe the r the te n-y e ar bar on disc re tiona ry re lie f for fa iling to volunta rily de pa rt a pplie s to him .” ). The B IA thus did not a b use its disc re t ion in de ny ing them otion to re ope n on this ground. 3. The B IA did not, a s Za ini a lle ge s, c o m m it a due proc e ss viola

tion by de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n without c onside ring a ll thee vide n c e . An a lie n se e k ing to e sta

blish suc h a

viola tion m ust ove rc o m e the pre sum

ption tha t the B IA ha s re vie w e d the re c ord. Larita-Martine z v . I.N .S. , 220 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th C ir. 2000). Za ini fa ils to do so he re . C o ntra

ry to he r argum e nt, theB IA did a ddre ss the te stim ony of Za ini’ s e xpe rt witne ss, but c onc lude d tha t it did not e sta

blish a patte rn or pra c tic e of pe rse c ution in Indone sia . The B IA wa s not re quire d to e nga ge in a le ngthy e xpla nat ion for this c onc lusion. Se e N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 990; Fe ng Gui Lin v . Holde r , 588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th C ir. 2009). Furtherm ore , Za ini’ s argum e nt tha

t the B IA a

pplie d a “polic y to de ny

m otions to re ope n” to he r c a se is without support in the

re c ord. 4. The B IA a lso did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Za ini’ s m otion to re c o nside r. First, them otion wa s untim e ly . Se e8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(6)(B ). Se c ond, theB IA did not err in de ny ing them otion on the ground tha

t D ada v . 4Muk

ase y , 554 U.S. 1 (2008), ha s no im pa c t on Za ini’ s c a se . Se e8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(6)(C ) (“ T he m o t ion sha ll spe c ify the e rrors of la w or fa c t in thepre vious orde r and sha ll be supporte d by pe rtine nt a

uthority ” ). In Dada , the Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t “ [an] a l ie n m

ust be pe rm itte d a

n opportunity

to withdra

w [he r] m otion for volunta ry de pa rture , provide d the re que st is m a de be fore the de pa rture pe riod e xpire s.” 554 U.S. a

t 5-6. B ut Za ini did not re que st to withdra w he r re que st for volunta ry de pa rture be fore the de pa

rture pe riod ha d e nde d. Furthe rm ore , he r argum e nt tha

t she “ c onstruc tive ly

withdre w” he r re q

ue st for volunta

ry de pa rture by a ppe a ling to the

B IA in 2002 is ne gate d by the fa c t tha

t our c ourt subse que ntly found tha t he r “ m otion for sta

y of re m ova l inc lude d a

tim e ly re que st for sta

y of volunta ry de pa rture ,” and gra

nte d he r the opportunity to volunta rily de pa rt. Zaini , 113 F. App’ x at 787. It wa s the re fore not a n a buse of disc re tion for theB IA to de ny he r m otion to re c o nside r. 5. Fina lly , Za ini a

rgue s tha t e ve n if he r m otion to re c onside r wa s untim e ly , the B IA should ha

ve grante d he r m otion to re o pe n sua sponte . W e re je c t this argum e nt be c a

u s e we do not ha

ve jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of a m otion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e d ings sua sponte . Toufighi , 538 F.3d a t 993 n.8; Malty

v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 942, 945 n.1 (9th C ir. 2004). W e the re fore dismiss this argum e nt. 5PETITION DENIED in pa rt a nd DISM ISSED in pa

rt.

6