NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONG THANH CHAU, No. 16-70010
Petitioner, Agency No. A042-811-907
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Cong Thanh Chau, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reconsider and reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider and review de
novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chau’s motion to
reconsider and reopen as untimely, where it was filed fourteen years after his final
order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Chau failed to establish any
exception to the filing deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4).
To the extent Chau contends he is eligible for status under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1154(f), the IJ correctly noted that the granting of such status is outside of the
immigration court’s jurisdiction, see 8 U.S.C. § 1154(f)(1) (petition for
classification is to be filed with the Attorney General), and the record does not
reflect that Chau has filed such a petition.
To the extent Chau requests prosecutorial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to
consider that request. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.
2012) (order).
Chau’s remaining contentions, including alleged violations of due process,
equal protection, and international law, are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-70010