FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPTEMBER 14, 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. 05- 14150 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 78- 350- 672 J O S E M A N U E L P A 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 do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 14, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B A R K E T T an dH U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

Jose M anuel P ae z, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f C ol om bi a, proceedi ng pro se, p e titio n s f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a l’s ( “B I A ” ) d e c is io n to de nyhi s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rhi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. O n appe a l , P a e z a r gue s tha the prov i ded suffi ci entevi dence t o the B IA concerni ng the bo na fi des of hi s m arri age, a nd, thus , the B I A e rr e d byde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. W e c ons i de rde novo w he the rw e ha ve s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. B r ooks v. A s hc r of

t , 283 F . 3d 1268, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . B ys t a tut e , a n a l i e n s e e ki ng r e vi e w of

af i na l or de rof

the B I A m us tf

i l e ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w w i thi n 30 da y s of the i s s ua nc e of

the f i na l or de r . I N A § 242( b) ( 1) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 1) . “ [ T ] he s ta tu to rylim it f

o rf ilin g ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w in a n im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g is ‘m a n d a to rya n dju r is d ic tio n a l,’ [ a n d , th e r e f o r e ,] it is n o t s u b

je c t to e q u itab le t ol l i ng. ” D a ka ne v. U . S . A tt orne yG e n. , 399 F . 3d 1269, 1272 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng S t one v. I N S , 514 U . S . 386, 405, 115 S . C t . 1537, 1549, 131 L . E d. 2d 465 (199 5)). T he S up re m e C ou rthas s t at ed thatthe st atut e r equi re s thatea ch deni al f r om the B I A ha ve as e pa r a t e pe t i t i on of r e vi e w . S e e . S t one 514 U . S . a t394, 115 S . C t . a t 1543- 44. B e c aus e , a s t o hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n, P a e z ’ s onl ype t i t i on f orr e vi e w w a s not f ile dw ith in th e ap p lic ab le s ta tu to rytim e lim it, h is a r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g th e m e r its of thatm ot i on ar e notprop er l y bef ore us, and w e di sm i ss the pet i t i on as t o that i ss ue.3

P a e z a l s o a s s e rt s tha tthe B I A f a i l e d t o c ons i de ra nd c orr e c t l ya na l y z e the evi dence he subm i tt ed i n h i s m ot i on t o rec on si der, causi ng hi m and h i s w i fe i rr e pa r abl e ha rm , a nd, i f the c a s e w a s r e m a nde d t o the I m m i gr a t i on J udge , the g o v e rn m e n t c o u lde x a m in e h im a n dh is w if e c o n c e rn in g th e g e n u in e n e s s o f th e ir m a rr i a ge . P a e z , how e ve r , f a i l e d t o a ddr e s s the B I A ’ s s t a t e d r e a s ons f orde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o rec on si der, nam el y that : (1) P ae z had fai l ed t o sho w an error of l aw o rf a c t in th e d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to r e o p e n ; a n d( 2 ) b e c au s e th e m o tio n to re consi der onl y s ub m i tt ed m ore e vi dence re gardi ng w hether P ae z’ s m arri age w as b o n af id e , it w a s in e f

f e c t, an u m e r ic a llyb a rr e dm o tio n to r e o p e n . W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on f

ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n . A s s a ’a dv . U .S . A tt’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 ) . A m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on “ s ha l l s pe c i f ythe e rr or s of

l a w orf a c ti n the pr e vi ous o r d e ran ds h a l l b e s u p p o rt e db yp e rt i n e n tau th o r i ty . ” I N A § 2 4 0 ( c ) ( 6 ) ( C) ; 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 6 ) ( C ) ; s e e a ls o 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( s a m e ) . W e h a v e h e ldth a t a m o tio n th a t w is h e s to in tr o du c e n e w e v id e n c e s h o u ldb e c o n s tru e da s am o tio n to r e ope n. S e e A l N a

jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1301 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c o n s tru in g am o tio n to r e m a n dth a t in tr o d u c e dn e w e v id e n c e a s am o tio n to r e o p e n ) . J u d ic ia l r e v ie w o f th e d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n is “lim ite dto 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 ryorc apr i c i ous . ’ ” G a r c i a - M i rv.4

S m ith , 7 6 6 F .2 d1 4 7 8 , 1 4 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A d d itio n a lly , o n ly o n e mo t i o n t o r e o p e n i s a l l o w e d . Se e I N A § 2 4 0 ( c ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ; 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( A ) . T h e B I A d idn o t e rrin d e n y in g th e m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n , a s it f a ile dto a r gue orpr ovi de e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng al e ga l orf a c tua l e rr ori n the B I A ’ s de c i s i on denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen. A dd i t i on al l y, as P ae z’ s m ot i on m er el y s ub m i tt ed m or e e vi de nc e , i tw a s , i n e f f e c t , am ot i on t o r e ope n, w hi c h w a s ba rr e d be c aus e he pr e vi ous l yha d s ubm i tt e d am ot i on t o r e ope n. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s , w e f i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . F orthe above s t a t e d r e a s ons , w e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on i n pa rta nd d e n yth e p e titio n in p a rt. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.