FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB RUARY 26, 2007 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- 13215 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 190- 908 L U I S M A N U E L C A R V A L H O , 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

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

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 26, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n A u g u st 5 , 2 0 0 4 , an Im m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e ( IJ ) d en ied P etit io n er ’sPetitioner, his wife and the ir two children, all natives and citizens of Ang ola, had 1 p re v i o u s ly

re c e i v e d n o ti c e s t o a

p p e ar an d h a d c o n c e d e d

th atth ey w erere m o v a

b l eb e f o reth eIJ heard Petitioner’s application on August 5, 2004. His wifeand children were derivative benef iciarie s of his application for asylum, withholdi ngof removal and CAT re lief.

2 appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um , 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 atural i za t i on A ct , and rel i ef un der the U . N . C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( C A T ), 1 a nd or de r e d hi s r e m ova l . P e t i t i one rappe a l e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( B I A ) , a nd i ta f f i r m e d tha tde c i s i on on D e c e m be r28, 2005 w i tho utop i ni on . T hi s a ff i rm ance const i tut ed the fi nal agency order. O n F eb ru ar y 2 , 2 0 0 6 , P etit io n erfiled a p etit io n fo r r ev iew o f th e B IA ’s de c i s i on i n thi s c our t . O n M a r c h 22, 2006, w e di s m i s s e d P e t i t i one r ’ s pe t i t i on – w hi ch w as fi l ed thi rty- si x d ay s a ft erthe B IA had i ss ued i t s dec i si on and thu s w as un t i m el y – for l ac k o f j uri sdi ct i on . P et i t i on erthere af t erm ov ed the B IA t o reopen the proceedi ng s on the grou nd thatthe un t i m el y f i l i ng of hi s pet i t i on t o thi s c ou rt w a s due t o the i ne f

f e c t i ve ne s s of

hi s a tt orne y . H e c ont e nde d tha the m e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of

M a tt e rof

L oz a da , 19 I & N D e c . 637 ( B I A 1998) , be c a us e , a m ong other thi ng s, he pl anned t o fi l e agri evance a gai nstcoun se l and h ad suff er ed prej ud i ce because of the un t i m el i ness of hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew . T he B IA deni ed hi s m ot i on on M ay10 , 20 06 , because he f ai l ed t o m ee ttw o o f the three r e qui r e m e nt s of

L oz a da : he ha d notf

i l e d a c om pl a i nta ga i ns tc ouns e l w i th the ap p r o p r ia te a u th o r itie s , a n d h e h a d n o t g iv e n c o u n s e l a n o p p o r tu n ity to r e s p o n d toHe a ppear s pro se. 2 3 hi s a l l e ga t i on tha tc ouns e l ha d r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e . P e t i t i one rnow s e e k s r e v ie w o f

th e B I A ’s o r d e rin th is c o u r t. 2 W e r e vi e w “ the B I A ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o r e ope n f

ora n abus e of di s c r e t i on. ” A bdi v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 430 F . 3d 1148, 1149 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . O ur r e vi e w “ i s l i m i t e d t o 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 or c ap r ic io u s .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . P etit io n er ’s b rief

to th is co u rt co n tain s n o ar g u m en t co n ce rn in g th e B IA ’s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. T he r e f or e , he ha s aba ndone d the i s s ue . S e pul ve da v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 28 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t i ng G re enbri ar , L t d. v. C i ty of A l abas t er , 88 1 F . 2d 15 70 , 15 73 n. 6 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( ho l di ng that i ss ues a re deem ed abando ned w hen the bri ef on l y m akes a pas si ng re fe re nces t o an i ss ue)) . In stea d o f a d d re ss in g th e B IA ’s d en ial o f th e m o ti o n to re o p en , P etit io n er ’s b r i e f a r g u e s th a tth e BI A s h o u l d h a v e g r a n t e dPe t i t i o n e r ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, a n d C A T r e lie f . W e d e c lin e to e n te r ta in th e a r g u m e n t, ha vi ng pr e vi ous l y di s m i s s e d P e t i t i one r ’ s pe t i t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s di s pos i t i on of tha tappl i c a t i on. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.