### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 14, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15479 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 78- 617- 231 L U I S F E RN A N D O O S O R I O , P e titio n e r , ve r s us U .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.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju l y 14, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L ui s F ernand o O sori o, proceedi ng pro se, pet i t i on s thi s C ou rtfor r evi ew of2

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ s ( “ B IA ”) deni al of hi s “ M ot i on t o R ec on si der a nd t o R e m a nd. ” B e c a us e O s or i o’ s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs c om m e nc e d a f t e rA pr i l 1, 1997, the pe r m a ne ntrul e s of the I l l e ga l I m m i gr a t i on R e f or m a nd I m m i gr a nt R e s pons i bi l i ty A c tof

1996, P ub. L . N o. 104- 208, 110 S t a t . 3009 ( S e pt . 30, 1996) ( “I I R I R A ” ) , ap p ly . A f t e rO s or i o f

i l e d a n uns uc c e s s f

ul a s y l um appl i c a t i on a nd a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ( “ I J ” ) or de r e d hi m r e m ove d, the B I A a f f i r m e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on a nd di s m i s s e d hi s appe a l . O s or i o the n f i l e d hi s f i r s t“ M ot i on t o R e m a nd, ” w hi c h the B I A c ons true d a s a m ot i on t o r e ope n hi s r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . I n tha tm ot i on, O sori o st at ed thathe had m arri ed an A m er i ca n ci t i ze n the day before the B IA di s m i s s e d hi s appe a l , a nd tha the ha d “ unus ua l a nd out s t a ndi ng c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd equi t i es thatm ustbe added t og ether t o g eta c l ea r pi cture of the hardshi p i f he w er e de por t e d t o C ol om bi a . ” T he B I A c ons true d hi s m ot i on a s a m ot i on t o r e ope n a nd deni ed i tbecause O sori o d i d n otsubm i tan A pp l i ca t i on t o A dj ustS t atus as re qu i re d by the r e gul a t i ons , a nd he di d nots ubm i ta ny e vi de nc e t o s how the bona f i de s of h i s m a rr i a g e . I n s u p p o r to f i t s d e c i s i o n , th e B I A c i t e d M a tt e ro f Ve r l a r d e , 2 3 I &N D e c . 253 ( B I A 2002) , i n w hi c h the B oa r d s t a t e d tha ta m ot i on t o r e ope n f or a dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus ba s e d on a m a rr i a ge e nt e r e d i nt o a f t e rthe c om m e nc e m e ntof p ro ceed i n g s m ay b e g ran t ed atth e B o ard ’ s d i scret i o n w h ere, am o n g o th er th i n g s,3

c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e i s pr e s e nt e d i ndi c a t i ng a s tr ong l i ke l i hood the m a rr ia g e is b o n a f

id e . N ext , O sori o fi l ed a “ M ot i on t o R ec on si der a nd t o R em and, ” w hi ch the B IA c ons true d both a s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ra nd a s a m ot i on t o r e ope n. C ons trui ng O sa ri o’ s m ot i on as a m ot i on t o rec on si der, B IA deni ed O sa ri o’ s m ot i on because O s a r io d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te a n y e rr o rin th e B o a r d ’s e a r lie rd e c is io n to d e n y h is m o tio n to r e o p e n b a s e d o n th e r e c o r d b e f o r e it th e n . C o n s tru in g it a s a m o tio n to r e o p e n , th e B I A d e n ie d O s a r io ’s m o tio n b e c a u s e it w a s a n im p e r m is s ib le m u ltip le m ot i on t o reopen, O sori o d i d n otdem on stra t e e l i gi bi l i ty f or any of the re gu l at ory e xc e pt i ons t o the t i m e a nd num be rr e s tr i c t i ons on the m ot i ons t o r e ope n, a nd the B oard di d n otfi nd thatsua s po nt e r eopeni ng w as w arra nt ed for a ny re as on . S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), (3) ( 20 04 ). O n appe a l , O s or i o c l a i m s tha tthe B I A e rr e d by de ny i ng hi s f i r s ta nd s e c ond m ot i ons be c a us e the B oa r d di d notc ons i de rtha the gotm a rr i e d the da y be f or e the B IA deni ed hi s a sy l um and rel at ed cl ai m s. O sori o argues thati n o rdert o fi l e a t i m el y m o t i o n t o reo p en w i th i n th e req u i red 9 0 d ays, h i s co u n sel h ad t o fi l e h i s fi rst m ot i on w i thoute vi de nc e of the bona f

i de s of hi s m a rr i a ge be c a us e the y w e r e not a va i l a bl e t o hi m a tthe t i m e . H e a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe B I A a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by f a i l i n g t o r e c o n s i d e ri t s e a r l i e rd e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s “ Mo t i o n t o R e m a n d . ” He4

c l a i m s tha ta l ong w i th the “ M ot i on t o R e c ons i de ra nd t o R e m a nd” he f i l e d a l l of the bona f

i de s of the m a rr i a ge tha tw e r e a va i l a bl e t o hi m , a nd the B I A s houl d ha ve c o n s id e r e d th e m . W e r e vi e w a de ni a l of

a m ot i on t o r e ope n ora m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on f

or a n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. A s s a ’ a d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 332 F . 3d 1321, 1340- 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d 1 2 5 S .C t. 3 8 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e B I A a b u s e s its d is c r e tio n w h e n its d e c is io n “p r o v id e s n o r a tio n a l e x p la n a tio n , in e x p lic a b ly d e p a r ts f r om e s t a bl i s he d pol i c i e s , i s de voi d of a ny r e a s oni ng, orc ont a i ns onl y s um m a ry or concl usory s t at em ent s. ” S ee M i ckevi ci ut e v. IN S , 32 7 F . 3d 11 59 , 11 62 (10t h C i r. 2003) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . M ot i ons t o r e ope n a nd t o r e c ons i de ra r e di s f a vor e d, e s pe c i a l l y i n a r e m ova l 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 to th e a d v a n ta g e o f

th e d e p o r tab le [ n o w r e m o v a b le ] a lie n w h o w is h e s m e r e ly to r e m a in in th e U n ite d S ta te s .” S e e I N S v . D o h e r ty , 5 0 2 U .S . 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 , 1 1 2 S .C t. 71 9, 72 4-25 (199 2). In th is ca se , th e B IA d id n o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g O so rio ’s “M o tio n to R e c o n s id e ra n d to R e m a n d ,” w h e th e rit is c o n s tru e d a s a m o tio n to r e c ons i de rora s a m ot i on t o r e ope n. “ A m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ra s s e r t s tha ta tthe t i m e of the B oard’ s pre vi ou s dec i si on an error w as m ade. ” Z hao v . U ni t ed S t at es D e p’ tof J us t i c e , 265 F . 3d 83, 90 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . W he n theIn re le va nt p art , 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3. 2( c )( 3) prov ide s: 1 The time and numerical limi tations set forth in § 1003.2 (c) (2) shall not apply to a motion to re op e n p ro c e e ding s: (i) F iled pursuant to the provisions of § 1003.23(b) (4)( iii)(A)(1) or § 1003.23(b)( 4)(iii)(A) (2); (ii) To apply

or re apply

for a sylum or withholding of deportation based on c ha ng e d c irc ums tanc e s ari singin t hec ountr y of natio nality

or in t hec ountr y to which depor

tation has been ordered, if such evidenceis material and w as not availableand could not havebeen disc overe d or pre sented at the previous h eari n g; (i ii) Agre e d u

po n b y all p artie s a

nd jointly fi le d. No tw ith sta

nding su c h agre e ment, the par ties may contest the issues in a reopene d proce eding ; or (iv) F ile d b y

theSe rv ic ein e xclu sio n o r depo rt atio n p ro c e e ding s when th eba sis of the motion is fraud in the original proce edingor a crime that would support termination of asy

lum in accordancewith § 1208.22(f) of this chapter. 5 B IA re consi ders on e of i t s pri or deci si on s, “ i tt akes i t se l f bac k i n t i m e a nd l oo ks at the c a s e a s though a de c i s i on ha d ne ve rbe e n e nt e r e d. T hus , i f i tgr a nt s the m ot i on, th e B o a r d c o n s id e r s th e c a s e a n e w a s it e x is te d a t th e tim e o f th e o r ig in a l d e c is io n .” I d. T he B I A c orr e c t l y de t e r m i ne d tha tthe m ot i on c oul d nots uc c e e d a s a m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on be c a us e O s or i o di d notpr e s e ntpe r s ua s i ve e vi de nc e or ar gu m entthatthe B IA com m i tt ed an err or of l aw or fa cti n d enyi ng hi s e ar l i er

“ M ot i on t o R e m a nd” on the r e c or d be f or e i t . T he “ M ot i on t o R e m a nd” di d not c o n ta in a r e f

e r e n c e to f

o r th c o m in g e v id e n c e o f h is m a rr ia g e o ra n e x p la n a tio n a s to w hy he di d notpr oduc e i ta l ong w i th tha tm ot i on E xc e pta s pr ovi de d i n 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 3) , a pa r ty m a y f i l e onl y one 1 mo t i o n t o r e o p e n r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . Se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) ; 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a(c)(6 )(A ). T h e B IA d i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n b y d en yi n g O so ri o ’ sEv e n th ough th eB IA' s e arl ier o rde r de nyingOs orio' s f ir st " Mo tio n toRe mand " is 2 no t be fo reus , th eB IA' s c ha rac teri zation

of that mo tio n a s a

motion to re op e n w a s rea sonable be causeit had issued a final administrative order in Osorio' s caseon April 27, 20 04 , which h a d n ot b e e n a pp e ale d, and

Os orio s ought to introd

uc enew evide nc e , h is marriag e to a United States c itiz en, to g et re lief from removal proc eeding s. "[I ]f a motion to re mand

se e ks to introd

uc ee vide nc ethat ha s n ot p revious ly be e n p re sente d, it i s g e nerally tre ate d a s a

motion to re op e n. " Na

jja r v . A sh c ro ft , 2 57 F .3 d 1 26 2, 13 01 (1 1th Cir. 2001). In any

event, be causeOsorio failed to challeng e the B IA' s characterization of his moti on as a motion to reopen on appeal, he has waived this issue. 6 m ot i on, c ons true d a s a m ot i on t o r e ope n, be c a us e O s or i o ha d pr e vi ous l y f i l e d a m o tio n to r e o p e n o n M a y 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e B I A a ls o c o rr e c tly f o u n d th a t O s o r io 2 f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e i th e ro f th e r e g u l a t o ry e x c e p t i o n s f o u n d i n 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 2( c ) ( 3) t o the num e r i c a l l i m i t a t i on, s i nc e O s or i o di d notdi s c us s a ny of the e x c e p tio n s in h is “M o tio n to R e c o n s id e ra n d to R e m a n d ,” a n d n o n e o f th e m ap p ly . A c c or di ngl y , the B I A di d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng O s or i o’ s A ugus t20, 20 04 , “ M ot i on t o R ec on si der a nd t o R em and. ” U p o n rev i ew o f th e reco rd , an d h av i n g co n si d ered th e b ri efs o f th e p art i es, w e di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . F ora l l of the f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.