*

After examining the briefs and the records, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeals are submitted on the briefs and the records.  See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 25, 2009*

Decided March 3, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge    

No. 08‐2750

RAUFDEEN MOHINUDEEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A76‐766‐478

O R D E R

Raufdeen Mohinudeen, a native of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of an order by the

Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reconsider its decision in his removal

proceedings.  Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions by the

Board, see Kucana v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2008), we dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2750 Page 2

At a hearing in 2006 before an Immigration Judge, Mohinudeen agreed to depart

voluntarily, pay his way back, and waive his appeal in exchange for the government’s

assurance that it would not pursue fraud charges against him.  Despite waiving his appeal,

he subsequently did appeal to the BIA, claiming that the IJ erred in its earlier finding that

his claims did not rise to the level of persecution for purposes of asylum or withholding of

removal.  After reviewing his appeal waiver, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.  The Board explained that Mohinudeen had made no argument that his waiver

was neither knowing or intelligent, and that the IJ’s decision granting voluntary departure

was administratively final.  Mohinudeen did not appeal the dismissal.

Mohinudeen filed a motion to reconsider and argued for the first time that his

waiver of appeal was not knowing and intelligent.  The BIA denied the motion.  The Board

noted that Mohinudeen did not include the appropriate fee or fee waiver request within 30

days of the dismissal.  (Although Mohinudeen argued that he paid the fee to the local

immigration office, the Board ruled that this action did not comply with its regulations.)

Even if it had accepted the motion to reconsider sua sponte, the Board added, the motion

would be denied because Mohinudeen did not identify any material error of fact or law.

In this court, Mohinudeen mounts no argument regarding the timeliness of his

motion to reconsider, asserting instead that the BIA’s denial was generally an abuse of

discretion.  He reiterated his arguments concerning persecution in the underlying

proceeding, and reasserted that the Board erred in finding his appeal waiver was knowing

and voluntary.

Motions to reconsider are generally committed to the discretion of the Board.  See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2.  Discretionary decisions by immigration authorities are immune from

judicial review unless they raise constitutional claims or questions of law (i.e., a misreading

of the Boardʹs own precedent, the Boardʹs use of the wrong legal standard, or a failure to

exercise discretion), see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D);  Johnson v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 403, 404 (7th

Cir. 2008); Jezierski v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 886, 888 (7th Cir. 2008); Kucana, 533 F.3d at 538, and

Mohinudeen has identified no such challenge here.  The Board’s determination that the

motion was untimely is a factual question that we may not review.  Johnson, 546 F.3d at 404‐

05.  To the extent that Mohinudeen also asks us to review other aspects of his earlier

proceedings, those too are unreviewable because his petition is untimely as to the earlier

agency decisions.  See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Asere v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 378, 380 (7th Cir.

2006).

The petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.