The Honor able Sea n F. Cox, Unit ed States District Court J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0814n.06 Filed: Nove mber 21, 2007 No. 06-3891 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT AB OUB ACAR CI SSE, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt, ON PET I TI ON F OR REV I EW F RO M A FI NAL ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF v . IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS AL B ERT O R . G ON Z AL ES, Respondent-Appe llee. ________________________________/

BEF ORE: MERRI TT and CL AY, Circuit J udg es; COX, District J udg e. *

COX, Distric t Judge . Petitioner Aboubac ar Cisse (“ Cisse”), a native of Guinea , filed an application for

asylum and withholding of r emoval with the I .N.S., which was de nied by the immigration judge a ssigne d to the case following a mer its he aring

. Cisse then appea led the dec ision to the Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals, which a ffirme d the ruling . He a l s o fi l ed a M o tion for Re c on sid e ratio n w iththe B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n Appe als , whi c h w a s a lso de nie d. I n th is a pp e a l, Cis se se e ks re vie w o f t

he May 26 , 2 00 6 d e c isi on of the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls, de nyinghis Motion for Reconsi d eration. For the r easons discusse d below, we AFF I RM the denial of Cisse’sAs the Gove rnment notes, on Mar ch 1, 2003, the fu nctions of the for mer I NS were 1 transfe rre d from the De partment of Justice to three distinct ag encie s (United S tates I mmigration and Cus tom s E nf

or c e me nt, Un ite d St a te s Custo ms an d Bo rd e r P ro te c tio n, and Un ite d St a te s Ci tize ns hip and I mmigration Services) in the ne wly formed D epar

tm en t of Homela

nd Security

(“D HS”). See El k ins v . Co mf

or t , 392 F.3d 1159, 1161 n.3 ( 10th Cir. 2004). 2 Mo tio n f or Re c on sid e ratio n a

nd we DI SMI SS Cis se ’s a

pp e a l. I. BACKG ROUND Cisse is a native and c itiz en of G uinea, who c laims to have ente red the United States on Fe bruar y 17, 2001, without inspection. (Apx. at 104, 137-38, 182). Cisse f il e d ana p p li c a ti o nf

o r a s y lum a

n d w it h h o ld in g o f

r e mo v a l w it

h th e f o r me r I mmigration and Natura liz ation Service (“I NS”) on or a

bout September 4, 2001. (Apx. at 167-177; Suppl. Apx . at 7). Cisse’s asy lum claim was base d o n h is assertion that he wa s a member of the Rally of the P eople of Guinea ( “RPG”) political par ty in Guinea a

nd that he wa s arr ested a

nd tortured in April of 2000, for pr otesting a nd demanding the re lease of a le ader of the RPG. (Apx. at 170). The Gove rnment as s er t s that Cisse’s application wa s denied by an Asylum Office r and ref err ed to the I mmigration Court. On F e br ua ry 20 , 2 00 3, the I

NS ins tit ute d r e mov a l pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t Cis se by se rv inghim 1 with a Notice to Appe ar a nd char g ing him with being subject to remova l from the United States

un de r S e c tio n 2 12 (a )( 6) (A )( I ) o f t he I mmi g ra

tio n a nd Natio na lity

Ac t. (A px. at 182 ). Whe n Ci sse failed to a

p p e ar , th e h e ar in g w a s c o n d u c te d in a b s e n ti a an d a w r itte nd e c is io nw a s is s u e d by I mmigration J udg e Charle s Pazar (the “ I J ”) o n J une 25, 2003, orde ring Cisse removed to Guinea

. (S up pl. Ap x. a t 12- 13 ). Al on g wi th that dec isi on , Cisse wa s adv ise d tha t the re mov a l de c isi on wo uld be fina l unless he filed a

timely motion to reopen. (Suppl. Apx. at 12). Cisse then filed a motion to reope n, asser ting that he had not r ece ived notice of the he aring3

date. The I J g rante d the motion and reope ned proc eeding s on Dec ember 31, 2003. (Apx. at 179). On M arc h 23, 2004, Cisse, who was re prese nted by counsel, a

ppear ed bef

ore the I J , who indicated on the r ecor d that the matter w as re opened so that Ciss e could be hear d on his application for a sy lum. (Apx . at 79). Th e matte r w a s th e n c on tin ue d to No ve mbe r 1 8, 20 04 , at w hic h ti me the I J hel d a me ri ts h ea ri n g. (A p x . at 8 3 ). C i s s e s u b m i t t edd o cu m en t s t o t h e c o u rt o nt h e m o rn i n g o f t h e h ea ri n g, including a

faxed document purpor

ting to be a

letter fr om the RPG. (Apx. at 85). Counsel for the DHS objected to admission of t he document beca use the doc ument “g ives eve ry indication of being a manuf actur ed docume nt.” Among other thing s, Counsel for the DHS noted t hat: 1) t he letter was a fax ed copy , not an o ri gi nal copy ; 2) the letter did not appe ar to have an a ctual sig nature ; 3) the l et t erh ea d co n s p i cu o u s l y h ads i gn i fi ca n two rd s m i s s i n g fr o m i t ; an d 4 ) v ar i o u s wo rd s we re m i s s i n g,

c uto ff and /or ill e g ibl e . ( Ap x. a t 85 ). Th e I J a dmi tte d th e le tte r a s a n e xhibi t, b ut n ote d th a t it wo uld be g ive n “ lim ite d w e ig ht” be c a us e it wa s no t tim e ly fi le d, and du e to the fa c tor s no te d by the DH S. (Apx. at 86). F oll ow ingthe he ari ng , I J r e nd e re d his de c isi on a nd de nie d Cis se ’s a

pp lic a tio ns fo r a sylum , an d w i t h h o l d i n g o f

r e m o v a l , an d

o r d e r e d C i s s e r e m o v e d

t o G u i n e a . ( A p x . a t6 2

- 7 2 )

. T h e IJ conclude d that Cisse ha d not show n by clea r and convincing evidenc e that the a pplication was filed

w i t h i n o n e ye ar o f h i s ar

r i v a l i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s an d , t h e r e f o r e , C i s s e ’ s a

p p l i c a t i o nw a s n o tt i m e l y. He noted that Cisse could not offe r any cog ent testimony

conce rning his arriva l in the United States t h a tc o u l d b e v e r i f i e d i nan y m e an i n g f

u l w ay. Although the I J conclude d that Cisse’s application was untimely , in the event the B oard of I mmigration Appeals disag ree d, he neve rtheless discussed the application for asylum. Although the4

I J found that g ro un ds e xist to f

ind Cis se “ to b e le ss t

ha n c re dib le ,” the I J note d th a t he wo uld c re dit Cisse’s tes ti mo n y . ( A p x. a t 6 9 )

. E v e n s o , th e I J c o n c lu d e d th a t Ci s s e “ f a ll s w o e f u ll y s h ort of providing elig ibilit y

for a sy lum” and conc luded that Ciss e fa i l ed t o meet his burden of showing either pa st persec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of per secution. He noted that the cor roboration in the

case was “ utterly unconvincing ” and also noted that “the two most important documents purpor ting to prove re spondent’s RPG membership ar e utterly unreliable .” (A

px . at 69-70). Throug h his counsel, Cisse then filed a timely Notice of Appea l to the Boa

rd of I mmigration Appea ls (the “B I A”) on Dec ember 6, 2004. (Apx. at 54)

. I n his Notice of Appe al, Cisse asserte d that the I J err ed whe n he: 1) de nied Cisse’s application for asylum; 2) denied C isse’s applica tion for withholding of r emoval; 3 ) d en ied Cisse’s application for re lief under the Torture Convention; 4) f o u n d Ci s s e ’ s c a s e w a s n o t p r o p e r ly c o r r o b o r a te d ; an d 5 ) r

u le d th a t Ci s s e w a s n o t c r e d ib le

. ( A p x. at 56). On

No ve mbe r 18 , 20 05 , Cis se ’s Couns e l fi le d a mot ion se e kin g an e xten sio n o f t ime to f ile Cisse’s brief. ( Apx. 50-51). The BIA g rante d that reque st a nd chang ed the due date f

or Cisse’ brief fr om N ov e mbe r 21, 20 05 , to De c e mbe r 12, 20 05 . (Apx. at 47 ). Th a t no tic e e xpre ssl y wa rn e d th a t: The B oard r are ly

g rants more than one briefing extension to eac h party . There fore , if y ou have be en g rante d an extension, y ou should assume that y ou will not be g ra nte d a ny fu rt he r e xten sio ns . I f y ou filed y our brief late, y ou must file i t along with a motion for consider ation of y our late- filed brief

. . . The mot ion must set forth in detail the re asons that pre vented y ou fr om f ili ngy our b ri e f on tim e . Yo u s ho uld su pp or t th e mot ion

wi th a ff ida vit s, decla rations, or other

evidenc e. Only

one such motion will be consider ed by the B oard. (Apx. at 48)(empha sis in original). Cisse’s brief w as not filed by the extended d eadline of Dec ember

12, 2005. Counsel for5

Cisse claims that he made a mistake in ca lendar ing the due date , and on De cembe r 16, 2005, filed a “Motion to Acc ept B rief O ut of Time.” ( Apx. at 38). On Fe bruar y 3, 2006, the B I A denied Cisse’s

m o t i o n , s t at i n g: We fi nd the re a so n state d by the re sp on de nt i ns uf

fi c ie nt f or us to a c c e pt t

he un tim e ly br ie f i n o ur

e xer c ise of

dis c re tio n. 8 C. F .R. §1 00 3. 3( c )( 1) . T he re fo re , the mot ion to acc ept the untimely b ri ef i s denied. Ac cording ly , the brief is returne d. The B oard will not consider any

additional motions to acc ept t he late filed brief in this m atter. (Apx. at 34). I n an Or der issued on A

pril 10, 2006, the BIA af firmed the de cision of t h e I J , s t at i n g as fo llo ws : We adopt and affirm t he decision of t he I mmigration J udg e. S ee Matter of B urbano, 20 I &N Dec

. 872, 874 (B I A 1994)(noting that adoption or aff irmance of a dec ision of an Immigration J udg e, in whole or in part, is ‘simply a stateme nt that the Boa rd’s co n cl u s i o n s u

p o nre v i ew o f t h e r ec o rdco i n ci d e w i t h t h o s e t h e Imm i gra t i o nJ u d ge articul ated in his or her

decision’) . We ag ree with the I mmigration J udg e that the responde nt’s vag ue testimony of limited credibility

as we ll as his brother’ s statement that the respondent arr ived i n Memphis in 2001, is insufficient to show by clea r and convincingevidenc e that he f iled his asy lum a

pplication within 1 y ear

of his arr ival in the United States. Fu rt h er, the testimony and the f

ew doc uments submitt ed, themselves of que stionable provena nce ( Tr. at 40- 44; Ex h 6-7), lea d to our ag ree ment that the re spondent has failed to meet his burden of proof r eg ardingwithholding of remova l. Accor dingly , the appe al is dismis sed. (Apx. at 32). Cisse did not file a petition for review with this Court following issuance of that decision. R a t h e r , o nA p r i l 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , C i s s e f i l e d a M o t i o nf o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o nw i t h t h e B IA

. ( A p x . a t6 )

. In his br ie f in sup po rt of his Mo tio n to Rec on sid e r, Cis se a sse rt s tha t the I J e rr e d whe n he ru le d th a t: 1) Cisse’s application for asy lum was not timely ; 2) C isse was not entitled to asylum; 3) Cisse was

n o t e n ti tl e d

to w it h h o ld in g o f

r e mo v a l; an d

4 ) Ci s s e w a s n o t e n ti tl e d to v o lu n ta r y d e p artu r e . ( A p x. at 12). The Moti on for Reconsideration did not raise the issue of the B I A’s conside ration of Cisse’s6

appea l without a ti mely filed appellate brief, nor di d it specify any alleg ed error in the April 10, 2006 decision issued by

the B I A. On May 26, 2006, the B I A issued an Or der de ny ing Cisse’s Motion for Re consideration. (Apx. at 5). On June 21 , 2 00 6, Cis se fi le d th e ins tant p e tit ion fo r r e vie w. Th e pe tit ion state s th a t Cis se “see ks review

of the B oard of

I mmigration App ea l s ’ d ec i sion dated May 26, 2006 denying the Motion to R econside r of Petitioner a nd aff irming the denial of withholding of remova l and voluntary depar ture by the I mmigration J udg e.” ( Apx. at 1). II. AN AL YSI S A. This Co ur t L ac ks J ur isdi c ti on To Re vie w The BIA ’s Apr il 1 0, 20 06 De c isi on. Although his petiti on for review indicates t hat he is appea ling the B I A’s May 26, 2006 denial of his Motion to Reconsider , in his brief, Ciss e also attempts to challeng e the BIA’s Apr il 10, 2006 order aff irming the I J . This Court, however , lacks jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s April 10, 2006 decision af

firming the I J beca

use Cisse did not file a timely petition for re view of that decision. Un de r 8 U. S.C. § 1 25 2( b) (1 ), a pa rt y mus t file a

pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththe c ourt

of a pp e a ls within 30 day s of the date of a f inal order of re moval. Jaber v . Gonzales , 486 F.3d 223, 229 ( 6th Cir. 2007). That st atutory limit is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Bal v. Gonzales , 2 0 7 F e d

. A p p x. 627, 629 (6th Cir. 2006). The B I A’s Apr il 10, 2006 Order, w as a “f i n al appealable r emoval orde r.” Bal, 207 Fe d

. Ap p x . at 6 2 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 )( ci t i n g Sto ne v . I NS , 514 U.S. 386, 395 (1995)). Mor eover , a “motion to reconsider

a fina l removal orde r does not stay the orde r, 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(f ), and does not toll t he time in which to see k judicial revie w of the or der.” Id.7

Thus, in order to obtain r eview of the i ssues contained in the order, C isse had to file a pe tition for r eview w ithin 30 day s of the B I A’s April 10, 2006 order , or by May 10, 2006. Cisse, however , did not file a petit ion for review until J une 21, 2006. There fore , the petit ion for review filed on J une 21 , 200 6, c ann ot p ro vid e jur isd ic tio n to re vie w the B I A’ s Apr il 1 0, 20 06 Or de r, and thi s Co ur t mu st limit i t s re v i ew to the BI A’s May 26, 2006 denial of Cisse’s Motion to Reconsider. Bal , 207 Fe d.Appx. at 630. B. Cisse Has Not Show n Th at The BIA Abus ed Its Discre tion In Denyin g His Motion For Re c ons ide r at ion . I n its Orde r dated May 26, 2006, the BI A denied Cisse’s Motion for Rec onsideration, stating

a s f oll ow s: The re s p o n d e n t mo v e s th e B o ar d p u r s u an t to 8 C. F

. R. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 to r e c o n s id er our decision date d April 10, 2006. A m otion to rec onsider ‘sha ll state the rea sons for the mot ion by sp e c if y ingthe e rr or s o f f

a c t or law i n th e pr ior

B oa rd de c isi on .’ 8 C. F .R. §1003.2(b). ‘ The ve ry nature of a motion to rec onsider is that the orig inal decision was defec tive in some reg ard.’ Matter of Cerna , 20 I &N Dec

. 399, 402 (B I A 1991). The re spondent has fa iled to specify any err ors of fact o r law in the pr ior Boa rd decision. The issues pr esente d in the motion to reconsider a ll i n v o l v e whe ther the I mmigration J udg e er

red. T h e Boa

rd, in its prior decision, alre ady revie wed the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s de c isi on . A ll o f t he a rg ume nts in t

he mot ion

that pe rt a in t o alleg ed er ror in the Immigration J udg e’s de cision should have be en m ade to the Boa rd i n the prior appea l. Moreover , the motion specifies no B oard e rror , but rather c on ta ins on ly

a g e ne ra l st a te me nt t

hat th e B oa

rd ‘f a ile d to pr op e rl y c on sid e r the fa c ts of re cord a

nd the applica

ble law . . .’ Acc ording ly , the motion is denied. (Apx. at 5). BIA re g ulations provide that the dec ision to gra nt or deny a motion to reopen or

rec onsider is “within the discretion of the Boa rd.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) . Thus, this P anel r eviews the BIA’s decision t o deny a mot ion for reconsider ation for abuse of discr etion. Ss wai jjev . A sh c ro

ft , 350 F.3d 52 8, 53 2 (6 th C ir . 2 00 3) ; Sanusi v. Gonzales , 474 F.3d 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2007). “The BIA abuse s8

its discretion when it ac ts arbitrar ily , irrationally , or co n t ra ry to law.” Sswaijj e, 350 F.3d at 532; Alizoti v. Gonzales , 4 77 F .3 d 4 88 , 4 51 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) ; see also Sanusi v. Gonzales , 474 F.3d 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2007)(An a buse of discr etion can be shown when the BIA “of fer s no ‘rational

e xplanatio n, ine xplic a

bl y dep art [s] fr om e sta

bli sh e d p oli c ie s, or

re st[s ] on a

n im pe rm iss ibl e ba sis

s u ch as i n v i d i o u s d i s cr i m i n at i o naga i n s ta p ar t i cu l ar ra ce o r gr o u

p . ’” )( qu o t i n g Balani v. I.N.S. , 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 ( 6th Cir. 1982) ). Be ca u s e the B I A has such br oad discre tion, a party seeking

rec onsideration bea

rs a “ heavy

burden.” I. N.S

. v . D oh e rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). Cis se a sse rt s th a t th e B I A’ s O rd e r d e nyinghis Mo tio n fo r R e c on sid e ra tio n d oe s n ot c on ta in an explanation o f wh y t h e BIA re jected the various ar g uments contained in his Motion for Reconsider ation, and therefor e, the BIA has denied him of hi s rig ht to due process. Cisse has not

c ite d a ny a uth or ity wh a tso e ve r t o s up po rt

his “ du e pr oc e ss” argume nt. Moreove r, to the extent that Cis se conte nds that the BIA abuse d it s d i s cr eti on by not providing a deta iled explanation of wh y it rejec ted the var ious points i n his moti on, such an argument is unsupported. The a buse of discr etion standard simply require s a rational expl anation,

and the B I A e xpla ine d th a t it de nie d Ciss e’s Mo ti on fo r R e c on sid e ratio n b e c a us e Cis se fa ile d to specify any err ors by the B I A with respe ct to its April 10, 2006 decision, and becau s e all of the

argume nts c on c e rn ing a lle g e d er ro rs by the I J shou ld h a ve be e n ma de to t he B I A i n th e pr ior

a pp e a l. BI A regul ations a

uth or ize the fi lin g of

a mot ion fo r r e c on sid e ra

tio n a nd pr ov ide that a “motion to reconsider

shall state the re asons for the motion by specify ing the err ors of fa ct or law in t he pr iorBoa r d de c isi on and shall be s u pported by pertinent a

uthority .” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)( 1)(e mp h as i s added). As the B I A noted in its Order denying Cisse’s Motion for Reconsider ation, Cisse did not i dentify any particula r er ror of fac t or law in the B IA’s April 10,9

2006 decision

. Rather, Cisse me rely : 1) restate d the previous assig nments of er ror by the I J found in his N o t i c e o f

A p p e a l ; an d

2 ) a t t e mp t e d

t o r a i s e o t h e r

ar g u m e n t s t h a th e s h o u l d h a v e r a i s e d

in appea ling the I J ’s dec ision to t he B I A. Cisse had filed a timely

Notice of Appea l to the Board of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) on Dec ember

6, 2004 (Apx. at 54), in which he g ener ally asser ted that the I J err ed whe n he: 1) de nied Cisse’s application for

asylum; 2) denied Cisse’s application for withholding of remova l; 3) denied Cis se ’s a pp lic a tio n f

or re lie f und e r the To rt

ur e Con ve nti on ; 4) fo un d Cisse ’s c a se wa s n ot p ro pe rl y

corr oborate d; and 5) rule d that Cisse was not cre dible. (Apx. at 56). Although the BIA denied Cisse’s motion t o file an untimely brief in support of

his Notice of Appe al, the B I A’s Apr il 10, 2006 O r d e r r e f l e c t s t h a tt h e B I A c o n s i d e r e d , an d r e j e c t e d , C i s s e ’ s g e n e r a l a l l e g a t i o n s o f e r r o r s b y t h e I J: We ag ree wi t h t he I mmigration J udg e that the r espondent’s va g ue testimony of li m i t e d c r e d i b i l i t y a s w e l l a s h i s b r o t h e r ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t ar r i v e d in Memphis in 2001, is insufficie nt to show by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that he filed his asylum application within 1 y ear of his a rrival in the United States. Fur ther, the te sti mony

and the fe w d oc ume nts su bmi tte d, the mse lve s o f q ue sti on a ble provena nce ( T r. at 40-44; Ex h 6-7), lea d to our ag ree ment that the re spondent has f a i l e d t o m e e th i s b u r d e no f

p r o o f r e g ar d i n g w i t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the appe al is dismis sed. (Apx. at 32). I n addition, to the ext ent that Cisse’s Motion for Rec o nsideration ra ised additional

a ssi g nme nts of e rr or wi th re sp e c t to the I J’s de c isi on that w e re no t r a ise d in his No tic e of

Ap pe a l, those arguments should have bee n prese nted to the B I A in the appe al. Motions for rec onsideration are not an appr opriate f orum for r ehashingpreviously reje cted

argume nts or

arguin g ma tte rs tha

t c ou ld h a ve be e n h e ard duri ngthe pe nd e nc y of the pr e vio us a

pp e a l. Ah me d v. As hc ro

ft , 38 8 F .3 d 2 47 , 2 49 (7 th C ir . 2 00 4) ; Sswajje v

. As hc ro ft , 3 50 F .3 d 5 28 , 5 33 (6 thL ikewise, a motion for rec onsideration is not a subst itute for failing to file a timely brief on 2 appea l. See Zhang v. I

.N.S. , 348 F.3d 289 ( 1st Cir. 2003).

10 Cir. 2003 )

. T h is is n o t a s p e c ia l r u le f o r im mi g r a ti o nc a s e s , b u t r a th e r , is th e r u le th a t g overns 2 motions for rec onsideration g ener ally

. See e.g., Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony / ATV Publishing, LLC , 477 F.3d 383, 395 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Acc ording ly , this Pane l c oncludes that the BIA did not a buse its discretion in denying Cisse’s Motion for Reconsider ation. III . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM the de nial of Cisse’s Motion for Reconsider ation and we DI SMI SS C isse’s appe al