FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DE CEM B ER 22, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble J ohn R. Gibson, United States Circuit Judg e for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by * designation. [ DO NOT P UB L I S H]

I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 14875

________________________ B I A N o. A 77- 013- 328 J E A N M A R T E L L Y B R I C E , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ Pe t i t i o n f

o r R e v i e w o f

a n O r de r o f

t he B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a t io n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 22, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , K R A V IT C H a n d G IB S O N , C i rcu i t J u d g es. * P E R C U R IA M :2

J e a n B r ic e r e q u e s ts r e v ie w o f a d e n ia l o f

a m o tio n to r e c o n s id e ra m o tio n to re op en hi s proce edi ng s a nd a r equestfor s ua spon t e r eopeni ng . B ec ause the B oard o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ” ) w a s w ith in its b r o a d d is c r e tio n , w e D E N Y h is pe t i t i on.

I . B AC KG RO UN D B r i c e i s a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of H a i t i . O n 29 S e pt e m be r2000, he s ought e ntry i nt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s us i ng a f r a udul e ntpa s s por t . T he I m m i gr a t i on a nd N atural i za t i on S ervi ce subsequent l y c harged hi m w i th rem ov abi l i ty a s a n al i en w h o s o u g h t a d m is s io n in to th e U n ite d S ta te s u s in g f r a u d a n d w h o in te n d e d to i mmi g r a t e w i th o u ta v a l i d e n try d o c u me n ti n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1182( a ) ( 6) ( C ) ( i ) , ( a ) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . A n i m m i gr a t i on j udge de ni e d B r i c e ’ s c l a i m s f or re l i ef fr om re m ov al i n the form of as yl um and w i thh ol di ng and h i s r equest ed p r o te c tio n u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o r tu r e . B ri ce appeal ed the deci si on of the i m m i grat i on j ud ge t o the B IA , w hi ch d e n ie d h is ap p e a l. B r ic e f a ile d to p e titio n th is c o u r t to r e v ie w th a t d e c is io n . Inst ea d, he as ked t he B IA t o reopen p roce edi ng s, w hi ch m ot i on the B IA deni ed b e c a u s e B r ic e h a d n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t a n im m ig r a n t v is a w a s im m e d ia te ly a va i l a bl e t o hi m . B r i c e the n m a de a n unt i m e l y m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the de ni a l of r e ope ni ng a nd r e que s t e d s ua s pont e r e ope ni ng. T he B I A de ni e d both the3

m o tio n to r e c o n s id e ra n d th e m o tio n f o rs u a s p o n te r e o p e n in g . B r ic e a s k s u s to r e v i e w th e s e l a s td e c i s i o n s o f th e B I A.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e “a r e o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u a s p o n te w henever i tm ay be l ac ki ng . ” C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). W hi l e w e genera l l y have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew fi nal o rd ers o f rem o v al , th e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew m u stb e fi l ed n o tl at er th an th i rty d ays a f t e rth e d a t e o f

th e f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l . S e e 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) . An o r d e ro f r e m o v a l b e c o m e s f

in a l w h e n th e B I A d is m is s e s a p e titio n e r ’s ap p e a l. 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 1 .1 ( a ) . W e have hel d that , “ [s ] i nce the st atut ory l i m i tfor f i l i ng a pet i t i on for r evi ew in a n im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g is ‘m a n d a to ry a n d ju r is d ic tio n a l,’ it is n o t s u b je c t to e qui t a bl e t ol l i ng. . . . F ur the r m or e , the f i l i ng de a dl i ne i s nots us pe nde d ort ol l e d by the fa ctthat[the pet i t i on er ] fi l ed a [ t i m el y] m ot i on t o reopen t he re m ov al p ro ce ed in g s . . . af

ter iss u an ce o f th e f

in al o rd ero f r em o v al.” D ak an e v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n . , 3 9 9 F. 3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 2 n . 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( c i t i n g St o n e v . I N S, 514 U . S . 386, 405, 115 S . C t . 1537, 1549 ( 1995) ) . T hus , w e do notha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e r t a i n B r i c e ’ s c ha l l e nge t o pr oc e e di ngs pr i ort o the m os tr e c e nt d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n s fo r reco n si d erat i o n an d su a sp o n t e reo p en i n g , b ecau se th o seIt a pp e arsthat 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 5 ) ( C) will become 8 U . S. C. 1 § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 6 ) ( C) in the next editi on of the United States Code a s a re sult of the REALID Act. See REAL

ID Act of

2005, Pub. L . 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. 4 pr oc e e di ngs w e r e nott i m e l y appe a l e d. W e d o h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A d e n ia l o f B r ic e ’s m o tio n to r e c ons i de ra nd r e vi e w s uc h m ot i ons f ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e A s s a ’ a d v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 33 2 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 41 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). A m ot i on t o rec on si der

“ shal l spec i fy the errors of l aw or fa cti n the previ ou s orderand shal l be supp ort ed by pe r t i ne nta uthor i ty . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 5) ( C ) . “ J udi c i a l r e vi e w of de ni a l s of 1 d is c r e tio n a ry r e lie f

in c id e n t to d e p o r ta tio n p r o c e e d in g s . . . is lim ite d to de t e r m i ni ng ‘ w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve di s c r e t i on a nd w he the rthe m a tt e rof

e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a ry orc apr i c i ous . ’ ” G a r c i a - M i rv. S m i th, 766 F . 2d 1478, 1490 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ( a d d r e s s in g a m o tio n to r e o p e n ) . M o tio n s to r e c o n s id e ra r e d is f a v o r e d , e s p e c ia lly i n a de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ng, “ w he r e , a s a ge ne r a l m a tt e r , e ve ry de l a y w or ks t o the advant age of the depo rt abl e a l i en w ho w i shes m er el y t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t at es . ” I N S v. D oh erty, 50 2 U . S . 31 4, 32 3, 11 2 S . C t . 71 9, 72 4– 25 (199 2). I n thi s c a s e , the B I A m a de thr e e rul i ngs i n the or de rde ny i ng B r i c e ’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on : (1) i tdeni ed the m ot i on t o rec on si der i n Jul y of aJa nu ary order as t i m e barre d; (2) i tdeni ed the m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on of the June order for f ai l ure t o st at e afa ctual or l egal defe cti n the deci si on t o d eny B ri ce a “ V ” vi sa ;CitingPate l v. Attor ney General, 3 34 F .3 d 1 25 9, 12 63 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) , B ri c ea ssert s in 2 his brief a nd supplemental filing s that we may review “substantial constitutional” challeng es. Brice a rgues that newfactual circumstances wa rra nt our, or at lea st the BIA’s, review. However, new f a c ts m ay no t beraise d in

a motion to re c on side r b e c a

us ea motion to re c on side r re quire s a de c isi onmaker to c on side r only thec irc ums tanc e s th at e xiste d when th ede c isi on wa s o ri g inally made. Zhao v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice, 265 F .3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). We may not consider the new f a c ts s ub mitte d b y

B ri c ein his a

pp e llatebrie f f

or thesamere a so n. Se eCsekin e k v . I NS, 391 F.3d 819, 823 ( 6th Cir. 2004). CitingB ullv. I

NS, 79 0 F .2 d 8 69 , 8 71 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 6) , B ri c eargue s th at heis entitle d to there lie f h eso ught, be c a

us ehise lig ibi lity

dateha s a

rrive d s inc ehisJanu ary

20 03 motion

to reopen was filed. The inevitability of the subsequent arrival of an e ligibility date is an important rea son that motions t o rec onsider are reviewed on a ppeal a s of the re cord at the time of the de terminatio n in

qu e sti on . A s w a s o bs e rv e d b y theB IA, B ri c edid

no t ha vea vis a imm e diate ly availableat the time of the initial dec ision. W e therefore do not re ad B rice ’s claim under Bull as establishing a

violation of his due proce ss rights, as such a determination would thwart Congress’s intent. Be causehe does not alleg e any fac ts from the administrative re cord that demonstrate a deprivation of proce dural dueproce ss nor cite a singlecasein support of such a c laim, we co n s tru e B ri ce ’s co n s t i tut i o n al argum entas co u ch edi nv agu e s u b s t ant i v e du e p ro ce s s l an gu age reg ardingthe inherent unfairne ss of the application of the immigration laws to his case. Such a vague alleg ation is insufficient to state a c laim of substantial constitutional viol ation such that we would have jurisdiction to examine claims that are otherwise procedurally barred. Brice c oncede d at oral argument that beca use of c hang ed circumstance s, he is no longer 3 elig ible for a

“V”Visa under

8 C.F.R. § 214.15. We acc ept this waiver of the argument a dv anc e d in

hisbrie f a

nd , th e re fo re , do n ot add

re ss it. 5 (3) i tdecl i ned t o exerci se sua s po nt e autho ri ty t o reopen t he proceedi ng s. B ri ce can n o tch al l en g e th e fi rstd eci si o n an d co n ced ed th e seco n d ato ral arg u m en t , so 2 3 w e n e e d a d d r e s s o n ly th e B I A ’s d e c is io n n o t to e x e r c is e its s u a s p o n te a u th o r ity to r e ope n. T he B I A ha s “ the di s c r e t i on t o r e ope n i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ngs i n s i tua t i ons w he r e f e de r a l c our t s l a c k the l e ga l a uthor i ty t o m a nda t e r e ope ni ng. ” A ni n v. R e no, 18 8 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 79 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). W e have observed that8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(a) “g iv e s th e B I A n o n - r e v ie w a b le d is c r e tio n to d is m is s [ a p e titio n e r ’s ] c la im .” I d .6

T he B I A i s notr e qui r e d “ t o r e ope n a de por t a t i on pr oc e e di ng unde ra ny s e tof pa r t i c ul a rc i r c um s t a nc e s . I ns t e a d, the pr ovi s i on m e r e l y pr ovi de s the B I A the di sc re t i on t o reopen i m m i grat i on proceedi ng s a s i tse es fi t . ” I d. T hu s, there w as n o a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n w h e n th e B I A d id n o t e x e r c is e its s u a s p o n te a u th o r ity to reo p en B ri ce’ s p ro ceed i n g s.

I I I . CONCL US I ON B r i c e ha s f

a i l e d t o s how tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f f r om the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o rec on si der a nd hi s m ot i on for s ua spon t e r evi ew . T he B IA w as w ith in its d is c r e tio n to d e n y th e s e m o tio n s . PETI TI O N D EN I ED .