2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-24-2009 

# P e rl a s v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3016

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P e rl as v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 955. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/955I M G- 1 1 6 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3016

___________ BE RT A LI LI A PER LA S, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

_______________________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (Ag ency No. A94-751- 895) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

_______________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y15, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y24, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM B ert a L i l i a P erl as pet i t i on s for r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ (“ B IA ” ) f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yh e r p e titio n .A lth o u g h P e rla s c a p tio n e d h e r m o tio n b e f o re th e B IA a s a “ m o tio n to 1 re o p e n /re m a n d ,” th e B IA d e ter m in e d th a t itsh o u ld b e c o n stru e d a s a m o tio n to reconsi der. P erl as does n ot ar gu e i n h er pet i t i on for r eview that the B IA err ed in so tr e a tin g it. 2 P e rla s is f

o rty -o n e y e a rs o ld a n d is a c iti z e n o f H o n d u ra s. P e rla s w a s a d m itt e d to the U n it ed S tat es a s a p aro lee in O ctob er 1 9 9 9 . O n D ec em b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 , h er tem p o rary pr ot ect ed s t atus w as w i t hdr aw n, and, i n A ugus t2006, s he w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs . Per l as s oughtr el i ef i n t he form of ca ncel l at i on of r emoval , w hi ch al l ow s t he A t t or neyG ener al t o canc el t he r emoval of a de por t abl e al i en i f the al i en ca n es t abl i s h that h e r re m o v a l “w o u ld re su lt i n e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip ” to c e rta in m em b ers o f h er f

am il y . 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 )(D ). Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, t he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed Per l as ’ s appl i cat i on on t h e g r o u n d t h a ts h e f

a i l e d t o ma k e t h e r e q u i s i t e s h o wi n g u n d e r§ 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D) . By or derent er ed February20, 2008, t he B I A aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on deny i ng r el i ef. Per l as s ubs equent l ys oughtr econs i der at i on, but , byor derent er ed J une 9, 2008, the B I A deni ed herr eques ton t he gr ound t hats he fa i l ed t o m eetthe r egul at oryr equi r ement s fors uch a mo t i o n . S e e 8 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( b ) . On J u l y8 , 2 0 0 8 , P e r l a s f i l e d th i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. 1 In h er p eti ti o n fo r rev iew an d b ri ef in su p p o rtthere o f, P erlas ch all en g es th e B IA ’s February20, 2008 or deraff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on deny i ng herappl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval . Speci fi cal l y , Per l as ar gues thatthe I J err ed i n fi ndi ng thats he fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatherr etur n t o H ondur as w oul d r es ul ti n “exc ept i onal andPer l as ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on di d nott ol l the t i m e forfi l i ng a pet i t i on for 2 r evi ew of the B I A ’ s February20, 2008 deci s i on. St one v. I m m i gr at i on & N atur al i zat i on S e rv ., 5 1 4 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 8 -9 9 (1 9 9 5 ). 3 e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip ” to h e r f a m ily . T h is C o u rt d o e s n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to r evi ew t he B I A ’ s February20, 2008 or derbeca us e Per l as di d notfi l e herpet i t i on for r evi ew w i t hi n 30 day s of thator der . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ( pr ovi di ng thata pet i t i on 2 forr evi ew m us tbe fi l ed notl at ert han thi r t yday s aft erthe dat e of the fi nal or derof r emoval ) . T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w as , how ever , t i m el yw i t h r es pectt o t he B I A ’ s J une 9, 2 0 0 8 o rd e r d e c lin in g to re c o n sid e r its p re v io u s d ism iss a l o f th e a p p e a l. T h e re f

o re , this C o u rth as ju ri sd ict ion to rev iew the B IA ’s Ju n e 9 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r. T hats ai d, Per l as ’ s couns el ed br i ef doe s notcont ai n anyar gum entw hat s oever per t ai ni ng t o t he B I A ’ s J une 9, 2008 or der . R ather , as not ed above , Per l as ’ s br i ef f ocus es s ol el yon t he B I A ’ s under l y i ng or der . T her efor e, anychal l enge t o t he J une 9, 2008 or der

— t he onl yor derw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew — has been w ai ved. See C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 221, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . M or eover , w e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the r ecor d and conc l ude that , even i f Per l as had cha l l enged the B I A ’ s deci s i on deny i ng her m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, t he B I A act ed w el l w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the m ot i on, as i tfai l ed t o r ai s e anynew l egal ar gum ent s oral l ege a nychange s i n t he l aw . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b )( 1 ). Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.