[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10004

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

NUR A ALAM SIDDIQUE, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A203-183-190

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 1 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10004

Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

GRANT, Circuit Judge:

Nur A. Alam Siddique seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reconsider its 

order affirming the denial of his petition to remove conditions on 

his lawful permanent residence. On appeal, Siddique argues that 

the immigration judge and the Board violated his due process 

rights in several respects and committed a legal error by admitting 

documents proffered by the government at his removal hearing. 

Because none of Siddique’s legal or constitutional claims are 

colorable, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

I.

Siddique, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, was admitted 

into the United States as a lawful permanent resident on a 

conditional basis related to his marriage to a United States citizen, 

Tamarah Vergel. About two years after his admission, Siddique 

filed a joint petition with Vergel for removal of the conditions on 

his residency pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(1). That petition fell 

through when Vergel did not appear for the required joint 

interview with the United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS). Following Vergel’s no-show at the joint 

interview, USCIS terminated Siddique’s status as a conditional 

permanent resident in September 2015. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1186a(b)(1)(A)(i) (requiring termination of permanent resident 

status if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines within 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 2 of 12
23-10004 Opinion of the Court 3

two years of admission that the qualifying marriage was entered 

into “for the purpose of procuring an alien’s admission as an 

immigrant”). The next month, Siddique and Vergel divorced.

After the divorce, Siddique filed another petition for removal 

of the conditions on his residency, this time filing individually and 

seeking a waiver of the requirement for a joint petition on the 

ground that he entered into his marriage with Vergel in good faith, 

though the marriage was later terminated. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1186a(c)(4). During an interview with USCIS agents on his 

second petition, Siddique refused to provide a sworn statement 

about his marriage with Vergel. USCIS denied his individual 

petition for removal of the conditions on his residency and initiated 

proceedings to remove him from the United States. 

USCIS charged that Siddique was removable as a noncitizen 

whose conditional resident status had been terminated because he 

was not engaged in a bona fide marriage with a United States 

citizen. Siddique responded by admitting that he was a native and 

citizen of Bangladesh admitted to the United States on a 

conditional basis but denying that his marriage to Vergel was not 

bona fide. At the master calendar hearing before an immigration 

judge, Siddique also admitted that his conditional resident status 

had been terminated, thereby conceding removability. He 

requested review by the immigration judge of USCIS’s decision on 

his individual petition for a good-faith marriage waiver and 

removal of the conditions on his residency. In support, he 

submitted financial records and statements from Vergel, members 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 3 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10004

of her family, and friends of Vergel and Siddique stating that their 

marriage was bona fide. 

In rebuttal, USCIS introduced a Homeland Security 

Investigation report and a Form I-213 Record of 

Deportable/Inadmissible Alien. According to the Form I-213, 

Siddique admitted in an interview with Homeland Security 

Investigation agents that he only married Vergel to obtain 

residency in the United States. 

Siddique testified at the removal hearing and denied that he 

told immigration agents that he married Vergel to get residency. 

He testified that he had married Vergel because he loved her and 

for no other reason. 

The immigration judge denied Siddique’s petition to remove 

the conditions on his resident status and ordered him removed 

from the United States to Bangladesh. The immigration judge 

observed that Siddique had conceded removability, though he 

contested the factual allegation that his marriage to Vergel had not 

been bona fide. The immigration judge concluded that Siddique 

had not met his burden of showing that his marriage to Vergel was 

in good faith, so he was not eligible for a waiver of the joint filing 

requirements. 

Siddique appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the 

Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing that the immigration judge 

erred in denying his petition for a good-faith marriage waiver and 

removal of the conditions of residency. He argued that the 

immigration judge should not have admitted the Homeland 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 4 of 12
23-10004 Opinion of the Court 5

Security Investigation report and the form I-213 into evidence 

because the statements in the documents were hearsay and because 

the documents were not produced before the hearing so that he 

and his attorney could properly review them.

The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the 

immigration judge’s decision and dismissed Siddique’s appeal. 

Siddique did not file a petition in this Court for review of the BIA’s 

dismissal order. He filed a motion for reconsideration, which the 

Board denied. Siddique now seeks our review of the Board’s order 

denying his motion for reconsideration.

II.

We review questions concerning our jurisdiction de novo. 

Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 866 (11th Cir. 2018). 

We review a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying a 

motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). The Board abuses its 

discretion “when it misapplies the law in reaching its decision” or 

“by not following its own precedents without providing a reasoned 

explanation for doing so.” Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 

1243 (11th Cir. 2013). Finally, we review the Board’s decision on 

legal and constitutional issues de novo. Poveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 692 

F.3d 1168, 1172 (11th Cir. 2012). 

III.

We must consider first whether we have jurisdiction to 

entertain the petitioner’s claims. Bing Quan Lin, 881 F.3d at 866. 

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, we generally lack 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 5 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10004

jurisdiction to review a decision specified under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1151–

1378 “to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the 

Secretary of Homeland Security.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We 

retain jurisdiction to review such decisions only to the extent that 

the petitioner raises colorable constitutional or legal claims. 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1275 

(11th Cir. 2020) (en banc). To be colorable, a claim “must be nonfrivolous” and “have some possible validity.” Ponce Flores v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 64 F.4th 1208, 1217 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotation omitted).

The decision whether to remove the conditional basis of 

permanent resident status for a noncitizen whose qualifying 

marriage was entered into in good faith is explicitly assigned to the 

discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security by 8 U.S.C. § 

1186a(c)(4). See Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 752 F.3d 1250, 1252 (11th Cir. 

2014). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the denial of an 

application for a good-faith marriage waiver and removal of 

conditions on residency except to the extent that the petitioner 

raises colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1252(a)(2)(D); Patel, 971 F.3d at 1275. 

This jurisdictional bar extends to our review of the Board’s related 

denial of a motion for reconsideration. See Butalova v. U.S. Att’y 

Gen., 768 F.3d 1179, 1184 (11th Cir. 2014).

To assess our jurisdiction, therefore, we must determine 

whether Siddique raises any colorable legal or constitutional 

claims. In his petition for review, Siddique argues that the 

immigration judge and the Board violated his due process rights 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 6 of 12
23-10004 Opinion of the Court 7

by (1) failing to review USCIS’s termination of his status and his 

removability;1 (2) allowing the government to introduce the Form 

I-213 into evidence without producing the document to him before 

the hearing; and (3) showing bias against him by finding his 

testimony and the written statements he submitted less credible 

than the statements attributed to him by USCIS agents in the Form 

I-213. He also argues that the immigration judge committed legal 

error in admitting the Form I-213 without requiring authentication 

or an appropriate foundation for the document.

We emphasize that our review is limited to the Board’s 

December 12, 2022, order denying Siddique’s motion for 

reconsideration. We cannot review the earlier order dismissing 

Siddique’s appeal because his petition for review was not filed 

within 30 days of that order as required by the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

1 We part ways with the concurrence on this issue in two respects. First, based 

on Siddique’s own summary of the argument, we understand his complaint to 

be that the immigration courts failed to review USCIS’s termination of his 

status (on which the government would have borne the burden of proof), 

before reviewing the denial of his application for a good-faith marriage waiver 

(on which he bore the burden of proof). Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(b)(2) with

§ 1186a(c)(4). Second, even if we focus solely on the burden of proof applied, 

our decision in Bourdon v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. is not controlling here. 

In Bourdon, we concluded that a specific provision of the Adam Walsh Act 

prohibited judicial review of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decisional 

process in determining whether a citizen posed a risk to his foreign spouse. 

940 F.3d 537, 543–44 (11th Cir. 2019); see 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I). 

Neither the Adam Walsh Act nor an agency no-risk determination are at issue 

here. 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 7 of 12
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10004

399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (the statutory period for 

filing a petition for review is “mandatory and jurisdictional” 

(quotation omitted)); see also Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995)

(a motion for reconsideration does not toll or extend the statutory 

deadline).

A.

Turning first to the constitutional claims, we conclude that 

Siddique is unable to state any colorable claim for a violation of his 

due process rights. Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration 

and review a prior decision is “up to the Board in its discretion”; 

reconsideration is not available as a matter of right. Santos-Zacaria 

v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 424–25 (2023); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) 

(2022). The “failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in 

nature does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest and 

thus cannot deprive an alien of due process under the Fifth 

Amendment.” Ponce Flores, 64 F.4th at 1218 (quotation omitted); 

see Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(noncitizen had no constitutionally protected interest in 

reconsideration by the Board). 

In addition, Siddique’s due process claims have other fatal 

flaws. His claim that the immigration judge and the Board failed 

to review the termination of his conditional status or consider the 

issue of removability is without merit because he explicitly 

conceded removability during the removal hearing and did not 

raise either issue in his brief on appeal to the Board or in his motion 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 8 of 12
23-10004 Opinion of the Court 9

for reconsideration. The Board could not have abused its discretion 

in failing to reconsider an issue that Siddique did not raise.

As to Siddique’s due process claim regarding the 

immigration judge’s admission of the Form I-213, the Board held 

that he waived that claim by failing to object on any related ground 

before the immigration judge. Siddique does not address that 

conclusion in his brief filed in this Court, much less raise any 

colorable legal or constitutional claim arising from the Board’s 

refusal to reconsider it. 

And finally, although Siddique couches his argument about 

the immigration judge’s decision to credit the Form I-213 over his 

testimony and witnesses in constitutional terms, his allegations of 

bias center on the judge’s credibility determinations and the 

relative weight given to the evidence. As we have explained before, 

this “is a garden-variety abuse of discretion argument that is 

insufficient to state a legal claim over which we have jurisdiction 

under § 1252(a)(2)(D).” Fynn, 752 F.3d at 1253 (quotation omitted). 

B.

Siddique also raises one claim of legal error: that the 

immigration judge and the Board erred in ruling that the Form I213 was admissible as a business record without requiring proper 

authentication or foundation for the document. Siddique raised 

this argument for the first time before the Board in his motion for 

reconsideration. The Board ruled that, like Siddique’s other 

contentions about the admissibility of the Form I-213, he waived 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 9 of 12
10 Opinion of the Court 23-10004

the argument by failing to object on those grounds before the 

immigration judge. 

In his petition for review, Siddique again argues that the 

Form I-213 should have been excluded at the merits hearing for lack 

of authentication and foundation, but he does not challenge (or 

even mention) the Board’s decision that he had waived those 

arguments by not raising them before the immigration judge. He 

therefore fails to make any colorable claim that the Board 

misapplied the law, failed to follow its own precedents, or 

otherwise abused its discretion in denying his motion for 

reconsideration. See Ferreira, 714 F.3d at 1243. 

IV.

Our jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration 

Appeals order denying Siddique’s motion for reconsideration is 

limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See 

8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1252(a)(2)(D); Fynn, 752 F.3d at 1252. 

Because none of the constitutional or legal claims Siddique raises 

in his petition are colorable, we must dismiss the petition for lack 

of jurisdiction. See Ponce Flores, 64 F.4th at 1217. 

PETITION DISMISSED. 

 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 10 of 12
23-10004 JORDAN, J., Concurring in Part 1

JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part.

In his petition for review of the BIA’s decision, Mr. Siddique 

raises five issues, some of which can be grouped together. Here’s 

how I would resolve them.

● Mr. Siddique argues (issue 1) that the IJ violated his due 

process rights by placing the burden on him to establish that his 

marriage to Ms. Vergel was bona fide in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 

1216.3. See Appellant’s Br. at 8. I believe we lack jurisdiction to 

review this argument under Bourdon v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland 

Security, 940 F.3d 537, 542-46 (11th Cir. 2019), which involved a 

similar claim that immigration authorities had used an improper 

standard of proof. I dissented in Bourdon, but the case constitutes 

binding circuit precedent that we are obliged to follow. 

● Mr. Siddique contends (issues 2, 3, and 4) that the IJ 

violated his due process rights when she allowed the government 

to file, submit, and introduce (i.e., admit) documents at the hearing 

despite not complying with the March 15 deadline for “all filings.” 

One of these documents, he points out, was a hearsay report of an 

interview in which he allegedly stated that he had married Ms. 

Vergel to obtain residency. He denied making that statement at the 

hearing, but he contends that he was unable to secure witnesses on 

his behalf and conduct cross-examination of the report. See 

Appellant’s Br. at 10-12, 13-14. In my view, the evidentiary 

arguments are foreclosed by Fynn v. United States, 752 F.3d 1250, 

1252-54 (11th Cir. 2014), and similar decisions like Contreras-Salinas 

v. Holder, 585 F.3d 710, 713-14 (2d Cir. 2009). As for the due process 

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 11 of 12
2 JORDAN, J., Concurring in Part 23-10004

arguments, I think we have jurisdiction, see Stewart v. Atty. Gen., 776 

F. App’x 573, 576 (11th Cir. 2019), but those arguments fail once the 

evidentiary challenges are out of the calculus. 

● Mr. Siddique asserts (issue 5) that the IJ was biased against 

him because she remarked (and prejudged) that Mr. Siddique and 

his affiants had “great reason not to speak candidly.” Appellant’s 

Br. at 17. It seems to me that we have jurisdiction to consider this 

claim of bias because it concerns the neutrality of the adjudicator 

and not the ultimate denial of relief. See, e.g., Cardona-Franco v. 

Garland, 35 F.4th 358, 363-64 (5th Cir. 2022). Nevertheless, the 

claim fails on the merits because the IJ made the statement in her 

oral decision (later reduced to writing) after the submission of 

evidence in an adversary proceeding. The IJ’s decision to not credit 

the evidence submitted by Mr. Siddique is not suggestive of bias, 

but is instead within the province of the trier of fact. 

I would dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.

USCA11 Case: 23-10004 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 12 of 12