Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10876/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10876-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Esther Twum
Petitioner
U.S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10876

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A099-048-433

ESTHER TWUM, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(October 26, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, HULL, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 1 of 8
2

Esther Twum appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

denying her motion to reconsider its prior decision, which dismissed her appeal of 

an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for adjustment of

status and ordering her removed from the United States. After review, we deny the 

petition for review.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Notice of Removal

On September 14, 2009, the United States Department of Homeland 

Security issued Twum a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). The NTA alleged that Twum, 

who had previously been admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant K-1 on 

December 10, 2006, for a period not to exceed March 10, 2007, had remained in 

the United States beyond that date without authorization from the Citizenship and 

Immigration Service. The NTA further alleged that Twum had not been granted an 

adjustment of status, which would allow her to remain in the United States, and 

thus charged her as subject to removal under Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). On October 13, 2011, Twum admitted 

the NTA’s allegations and conceded her removability, but requested an adjustment 

of status as relief.

B. Adjustment of Status Hearing Before IJ

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 2 of 8
3

On October 29, 2012, Twum was given an adjustment of status hearing 

before an IJ. At the hearing, the IJ considered arguments as to whether Twum’s 

previously failed attempts to have her status adjusted through I-130 and I-485 

petitions were properly dismissed. The IJ also reviewed prior findings by 

immigration officers as to whether Twum’s marriage to United States citizen 

Willey Smiley was bona fide, which is required for adjustment of status. Matter of 

Sesay, 25 I. & N. Dec. 431, 440 (BIA 2011).

Later that day, the IJ issued an oral decision denying Twum’s adjustment of 

status request and ordering her removed. The IJ concluded that Twum had failed 

to establish the bona fides of her marriage to Smiley that would warrant adjustment 

of status, stating that Twum had “not shown that this was a viable marriage for 

other than immigration purposes.” In support of that conclusion, in addition to 

highlighting various discrepancies between Twum’s and Smiley’s testimony with 

respect to prior adjustment of status petitions, the IJ noted that Twum had failed to 

present documents that would establish the bona fides of Twum’s marriage under 

the REAL ID Act or show reasonable cause why they were not presented, such as 

evidence of joint property or joint taxes or other such items.

C. Appeal to BIA

On November 26, 2012, Twum filed a Notice of Appeal asking the BIA to

review the IJ’s decision. In her appeal brief, Twum explained why she believed 

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 3 of 8
4

she had met the requirements for adjustment of status under INA § 245, but did not 

address the IJ’s findings with respect to the REAL ID Act’s requirements for 

establishing a bona fide marriage.

On October 24, 2014, the BIA issued a decision affirming the IJ’s decision 

and ordering that Twum’s appeal be dismissed. The BIA “agree[d] with the 

Immigration Judge that [Twum] failed to adequately establish the bona fides of her 

marriage.” Citing the REAL ID Act, the BIA noted that Twum had failed to 

provide tax or insurance documents or other such evidence that would establish a 

bona fide marriage and that she provided no explanation for the absence of such 

evidence.

D. Motion to Reconsider

On November 24, 2014, Twum filed a motion to reconsider with the BIA 

asking it to reconsider her appeal of the IJ’s decision.1

 In her appeal brief, Twum 

reiterated arguments from her prior brief as to why her marriage should be 

considered to have been bona fide, and Twum made new arguments not made in 

her prior brief that the immigration officer had erroneously adjudicated her prior

I-130 petition and that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reconsider her adjustment of 

status request. However, Twum did not challenge the BIA’s application of the 

REAL ID Act and its findings regarding Twum’s failure to present documentary 

 1

Twum did not file a petition of review of the BIA’s October 24, 2014 decision.

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 4 of 8
5

evidence that would establish the bona fides of her marriage or an explanation for 

their absence.

On January 29, 2015, the BIA denied Twum’s motion to reconsider 

explaining that Twum had “not identified any material error of fact or law in [its] 

prior decision.” It stated that Twum’s brief had reargued issues previously 

presented and raised new issues not previously presented. On February 27, 2015, 

Twum filed a petition for review from the BIA’s January 29, 2015 decision.

II. DISCUSSION

A petition for review must be filed with the court of appeals no later than 30 

days after the BIA’s final order of removal. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1). The statutory time limit for filing a petition for review in an 

immigration proceeding is mandatory and jurisdictional and is not subject to 

equitable tolling. Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 1043, 1045 (11th Cir. 2012).2

 

A motion filed with the BIA to reopen or reconsider the removal order does not toll 

the time for filing a petition for review with this Court. See Dakane v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005).

A motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous 

order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” INA § 240(c)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(6)(C). “[A] motion that merely republishes the reasons that had failed 

 2

We review de novo our own subject matter jurisdiction. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003).

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 5 of 8
6

to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its 

mind.” Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation 

omitted). Therefore, a motion to reconsider that merely reiterates arguments 

previously presented to the BIA does not specify errors of fact or law as required 

for a successful motion to reconsider. Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)). 

Additionally, a motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that could have 

been raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied. Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. 

Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006).

3

To the extent Twum’s petition should be construed as a challenge to the 

BIA’s initial decision dismissing her appeal of the IJ’s denial of her application for 

adjustment of status and order of removal, we must dismiss her appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. The BIA dismissed Twum’s appeal on October 24, 2014. Twum’s 

motion to reconsider did not toll the time to petition for review from that order. 

See Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3. Accordingly, to timely petition for this Court’s 

review of the BIA’s October 24, 2014 order, Twum would have needed to file a 

petition for review by November 23, 2014, which she did not do. INA § 242(b)(1), 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The petition that Twum filed was not filed until February 

27, 2015, and only referred to the BIA’s January 29, 2015 denial of her motion to 

 3

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Calle, 504 

F.3d at 1328.

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 6 of 8
7

reconsider. Therefore, our review is limited to the BIA’s denial of Twum’s motion 

to reconsider.

As to her motion to reconsider, Twum failed to identify any errors of fact or 

law in the BIA’s initial order dismissing her appeal from the IJ’s decision. In that 

order, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Twum had failed to adequately establish the 

bona fides of her marriage to Smiley and consequently failed to meet the requisites 

for adjustment of status. The BIA based its decision in part on application of the 

REAL ID Act and Twum’s failure to establish the bona fides of her marriage 

consistent with that act. As a result, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and 

dismissed her appeal.

In moving the BIA to reconsider its October 24, 2014 order, Twum needed 

to specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order drawing support by 

pertinent authority. INA § 240(c)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). But Twum 

did neither. Instead, Twum reiterated her bona fides arguments regarding her 

marriage that she had made previously, and she made new arguments regarding 

alleged errors in a prior I-130 petition adjudication and the IJ’s alleged lack of 

jurisdiction. As we explain above, such arguments do not specify relevant errors 

of fact or law sufficient for purposes of a motion to reconsider. And notably, 

Twum failed to challenge the BIA’s application of the REAL ID Act in support of 

its decision. Twum points to no authority showing either that the BIA erred by 

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 7 of 8
8

basing its decision to uphold the IJ’s decision in part on application of the READ 

ID Act’s requirements or that it erred by misapplying its requirements. As a result, 

we cannot say that the BIA rested its October 24, 2014 decision on insufficient 

grounds. Therefore, we cannot say that the BIA abused its discretion in denying 

Twum’s motion to reconsider.

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 15-10876 Date Filed: 10/26/2015 Page: 8 of 8