FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 11540 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 636- 057 E D S O N O R L A N D O R O D R I G U E Z - L O P E Z , P e titio n e r , v ersu s 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 7, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E dson O rl ando R od ri gu ez -L op ez , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f V enez uel a,Inh i s b ri e f , Ro dri gu e z - L op e zre f

er s t o h i s D e c emb er

1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , m o ti o nt o th eB IA as a 1 motion to reopen, not just a motion to re co n s i d er. Bef ore theBIA, however, Rodriguez-Lopez entitled his moti on only

as a motion to rec onsider. Likewise, the B IA re fer red to Rodriguez-Lopez’s motion sol ely

as a motion to rec onsider. F or purpose s of this appeal then, we too c onstrue Rodrigue z-L opez’s motion sol ely as a motion to rec onsider.

2 pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rthe B I A ’ s e a r l i e rde c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s de ni a l of

R odr i gue z - L ope z ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um and w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i tyA c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd r e l i e f unde rthe C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “ C A T ”) . O n app ea l , R od ri gu ez -L op ez ar gu es that 1 th e B I A e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rb e c au s e : ( 1 ) th e B I A f a ile dto use “ i t s ow n i nd ependentj ud gm ent ”; (2) the IJerre d i n fi nd i ng thatR od ri gu ez L o p e z w a s n o t ar e f

u g e e a n d h a d f

a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o raw e llfo u n d ed fe aro f f

u tu re p er se cu ti o n ; an d(3 ) w ith re sp ec t t o R o d rig u ez -L o p ez ’s c l a i m f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , the r e c or d c ont a i ns c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e v id e n c e th a t h e w a s p e r s e c u te d b yap o litic a l p a rtyin V e n e z u e la , th e F if th R e p u b lic M o v e m e n t, a n d th a t r e lo c a tio n w ith in V e n e z u e law a s n o t ap o s s ib ility . F o r th e m o st p ar t, th es e a rg u m en ts ar e d irec ted at th e m er it s o f th e I J’s ori gi nal re m ov al det erm i nat i on and m i rr or the ar gu m ent s r ai se d b y R od ri gu ez L op ez i n h i s i ni t i al appeal t o the B IA . T he pet i t i on for r evi ew before us, ho w ever , is ti m ely o n ly as to th e B IA ’s F eb ru ary 7 , 2 0 0 6 , d en ial o f R o d rig u ez -L o p ez ’s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r , notthe B I A ’ s N ove m be r16, 2005, or de ra f f i rm i ng theWe reviewissues of subject matter juri s d i ct i o nde novo. Ortega v. U .S. Att’y Gen. , 416 2 F.3d 1348, 1350 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). 3 d e c is io n o f

th e I Ja n d d is m is s in g R o d r ig u e z - L o p e z ’s ap p e a l. See 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 (b )(1 ) (req u i ri n g th atp et i t i o n fo r rev i ew b e fi l ed “ n o tl at er th an 3 0 d ays a f te rth e d a te o f

th e f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l” ) ; D akane v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 399 F . 3d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 2 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( r e c o g n iz in g th a t th e s ta tu to rylim it on the t i m e f

orf i l i ng ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w i s nots ubj e c tt o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng because i ti s “ m andat ory and j uri sdi ct i on al ”) (quo t at i on s and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). 2 T h u s, w e h av e ju risd icti o n o n ly to re v iew th e B IA ’s d en ial o f R o d rig u ez -L o p ez ’s m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r , a n d w e d is m is s h is p e titio n in s o f a ra s it c a n b e u n d e r s to o d to s e e k r e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s N ove m be r16th or de ra f f i rm i ng the de c i s i on of

the I Ja nd d is m is s in g R o d r ig u e z - L o p e z ’s ap p e a l. C f . i d. (r evi ew i ng the B IA ’ s deni al of a m o tio n to r e o p e n , b u t n o t th e m e r its o f th e u n d e r ly in g f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, because the al i en di d n otfi l e at i m el y pet i t i on for r evi ew of thatorder) .

“ W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e c ons i de rf orabus e of di sc re t i on . ” A s s a’ ad v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 3 3 2 F .3 d1 3 2 1 , 1 3 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) .

“ O urr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o de t e rm 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 ryor capri ci ou s. ” A bdiv . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 43 0 F . 3d11 48 , 11 49 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c u r ia m ) ( in te rn a l q u o te s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “A m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rs h a ll s ta teAlthough Rodriguez-Lopez states that the BIA and IJ “should have considere d all relevant 3 evidenc e” in an al y

zing his asylum claim, he does not actually explain how any

specificevidenc e was ignored or

overloo k ed . No r does headdre ss the BIA’s determination that his asylum application was untimely . In any event, we lack jurisdiction to review the B IA’s determination that an asylum application is untimely . See Chac on-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 42 7 F .3 d 9 54 , 9 57 (1 1th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam). 4 th e r e a s o n s f

o rth e m o t i o n b ys p e c i f

y i n g th e e rr o r s o f

f a c to rl a w i n th e p r i o r[ B I A] deci si on and shal l be supp ort ed by pert i nentautho ri ty. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b)(1); se e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 6 ) ( C ) . “W h e n th e [ B I A ] r e c o n s id e r s it ta k e s its e lf b a c kin tim e a n d lo o k s a t th e c a s e a s th o u g h ad e c is io n h a dn e v e rb e e n e n te r e d . T h u s , if it gr a nt s the m ot i on, the [ B I A ] c ons i de r s the c a s e a ne w a s i te xi s t e d a tthe t i m e of the ori gi nal deci si on . ” Zha o v. U . S. D ep’t of Just i ce , 2 6 5 F .3 d8 3 , 9 0 ( 2 dC ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . H e r e , th e B I A r e v ie w e d th e r e c o r da n dd e te rm in e dth a t R o d r ig u e z - L o p e z d id n o t i d en ti fy in h is m o ti o n to re co n sid eran y leg al o r f ac tu al erro rs in th e B IA ’s p r e v io u s d e c is io n . I n s te a d , th e B I A e x p la in e d , R o d r ig u e z - L o p e z ’s m o tio n “la r g e ly a tt e m pt [ e d] t o r e i t e r a t e a r gum e nt s a l r e a dym a de i n c onne c t i on w i th hi s appe a l a nd al re ady e val uat ed and rej ec t ed by [the B IA ] . ” A m ot i on t o rec on si der, the B IA s ta te d , “is n o t as u b s titu te f o ra n ap p e a l” a n d“is n o t to b e u s e da s a n o p p o rtu n ity for ase cond ef

fortatprov i ng fa ctual al l egat i on s. ” Se e, e . g. , In re G u eva ra , 2 0 I . & N . D ec. 2 3 8 , 2 4 8 (B IA 1 9 9 1 ). In th e i n st an tap p eal , R o d ri g u ez-L o p ez l i k ew i se f a ils to id e n tif

ya n ys p e c if

ic e rr o r s o f

f a c t o rla w th a t h e b e lie v e s th e B I A f a ile d to a d d r e s s in r e s o lv in g h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . R a th e r , h e a tte m p ts to r e a r g u e h is 35

cl ai m s f or as yl um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al on the m er i t s. A s f or R od ri gu ez L o p e z ’s a s s e rtio n th a t th e B I A f a ile dto u s e “its o w n in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t,” th is t oo i s unpe r s ua s i ve be c aus e R odr i gue z - L ope z f a i l s t o s upporti tw i th a ny s u b s ta n tia l a r g u m e n t o rau th o r ity . Se e Zaf arv . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 11th C i r . 2006, __ F . 3d __, ( N o. 04- 16613, A ug. 24, 2006) ( r e j e c t i ng e qua l pr ot e c t i on a r gum e nt uns upport e d bya nyc a s e l a w orc i t a t i ons t o the r e c or d) . A c c or di ngl y , w e f i nd no ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n in th e B I A ’s o r d e rd e n y in g R o d r ig u e z - L o p e z ’s m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.