[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12791; 13-14411

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A201-214-116

YUSONG CUI,

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent.

________________________

Petitions for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(May 9, 2014)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-12791 Date Filed: 05/09/2014 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Yusong Cui, a Chinese national, petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s finding that 

he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and (a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He also

petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider that final 

order.1

I.

In March 2010 a Florida state court convicted Cui of petit theft, resisting an 

officer without violence, and carrying a concealed firearm. Those convictions 

brought Cui to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security, which ran 

his fingerprints through a national database and found that he had not been 

“admitted, inspected, or paroled” in the United States. The DHS documented that 

finding in a Form I-213 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien and charged Cui 

as removable because he had entered the country at an unknown place and time 

without being inspected or admitted, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 

and because he lacked a valid travel or entry document, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). 

At a hearing before the IJ, Cui conceded his alienage but contested his 

removability, alleging that he had been properly inspected and admitted at the Los 

Angeles International Airport in May 1998. To support that allegation, he offered 

 1 Cui filed two separate petitions which are consolidated here.

Case: 13-12791 Date Filed: 05/09/2014 Page: 2 of 6 
3

only testimony — his own and that of two acquaintances. He presented no 

passport, no visa, no I-94 Arrival/Departure Form, no airline tickets, or any other 

documentation. Cui testified that his mother had made all of his travel 

arrangements, and that she had paid a man named Jang $10,000 to get a visa for 

him. He said Jang flew with him to the airport in Los Angeles in May 1998, after 

which Jang walked him through the immigration inspection and dealt with the 

immigration officials on his behalf. Cui testified that once he had passed through 

the inspection Jang took his passport and other immigration documents and left. 

Cui’s first acquaintance then testified that he had picked up Cui from the airport in 

May 1998, and the second testified that he did not know when Cui arrived but had 

heard that it was in May 1998. 

The IJ found that Cui was removable because he had not shown that he had 

been inspected and admitted into the United States. The IJ noted that Cui had no 

documentation to substantiate his story and found that his testimony was not 

credible and that the testimony of his acquaintances merited little weight. The IJ 

also found that the Form I-213 showing that there was no record of Cui’s 

inspection or admission was inherently trustworthy and admissible because Cui 

had neither objected to its admission as evidence nor offered other documentary 

evidence suggesting it was inaccurate. The BIA affirmed. Cui asked the BIA to 

reconsider its final order, and the BIA denied his motion because he had failed to 

Case: 13-12791 Date Filed: 05/09/2014 Page: 3 of 6 
4

identify any material error of fact or law in its prior decision. Cui now petitions for 

review of the BIA’s final order and its denial of his motion to reconsider.

II.

We review only the BIA’s final order except to the extent that the BIA 

expressly adopted the IJ’s decision or findings. See Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 

F.3d 486, 492 (11th Cir. 2013). In this context, we review factual determinations 

“under the highly deferential substantial evidence test,” and “we must affirm the 

BIA’s decision if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence 

on the record considered as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). To reverse 

the IJ and BIA’s factfindings, we must find that the record not only supports 

reversal, but that it compels it. See Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 

1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007).

Cui was charged as removable based on inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182, and when that is the charge, the BIA uses a burden-shifting test to 

determine removability. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(c). DHS bears the initial burden 

of proving alienage, after which the alien bears the burden of proving that he was 

inspected and admitted into the United States.2

 See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(B); 

see also Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 1337, 1345–46 (11th Cir. 2010). Cui 

conceded his alienage before the IJ, so we must determine only whether the record 

 2 An alien may contest his inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 on other grounds, but 

this is the only ground at issue here.

Case: 13-12791 Date Filed: 05/09/2014 Page: 4 of 6 
5

compels the conclusion that he was previously inspected and admitted into the 

United States. The record does not compel that conclusion. 

First, Cui did not prove that he had been inspected or admitted. He failed to 

present a single document to support his claim. The IJ found that his testimony 

was not credible, a finding we must defer to because it is supported by substantial 

evidence in the record. See D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814, 818 

(11th Cir. 2004) (“Credibility determinations . . . are reviewed under the 

substantial evidence test.”). And the IJ found that the testimony of his two 

acquaintances merited little weight, another finding supported by substantial 

evidence in the record. Second, the Form I-213 also shows that Cui was never 

inspected or admitted to the United States. That form is considered to be 

inherently trustworthy, and Cui did not challenge its admission or accuracy. See

Gutierrez-Berdin v. Holder, 618 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that “Form 

I-213 is a presumptively reliable administrative document” that is “inherently 

trustworthy” when its accuracy is not challenged). Because the record does not 

compel the conclusion that Cui was inspected and admitted into the United States, 

we must deny his petition for review of the BIA’s final order.

III.

“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of 

discretion.” Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007)

Case: 13-12791 Date Filed: 05/09/2014 Page: 5 of 6 
6

(quotation marks omitted). A motion asking the BIA to reconsider its decision 

must specify the errors of law or fact in the original decision. See id. at 1329 

(citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)). A motion that merely reiterates earlier arguments 

fails to specify those kinds of legal or factual errors. Id. Because Cui’s motion to 

reconsider merely reiterated arguments already presented, the BIA did not abuse its 

discretion in denying that motion. And to the extent that Cui based his motion to 

reconsider on new legal arguments that could have been raised in the underlying

proceedings, the BIA also properly denied his motion. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. 

& N. Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). 

PETITIONS DENIED.

Case: 13-12791 Date Filed: 05/09/2014 Page: 6 of 6