FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPTEMBER 7, 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. 06- 10915 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 96- 270- 090 & A 96- 270- 091 E S T H E R A V A L O S , M A U R O H U C U L A K , P e titio n e r s , 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 d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 7, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B IR C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P et i t i on er s, m other and son, ar e nat i ves and ci t i ze ns of A rgent i na. T hey w e r e a d m itte d in to th e U n ite d S ta te s in 2 0 0 1 u n d e rth e V is aW a iv e rP r o g r a m . P e t i t i one rA va l os , a c t i ng f orhe r s e l f

a nd he rs on, appl i e d f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) r e l i e f . A n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) he a r d he rappl i c a t i on a nd de ni e d r e l i e f f orthr e e r e a s ons . F i r s t , the appl i c a t i on w a s f

r i vol ous . S e e A dm i ni s tr a t i ve R e c or d a t45. S e c ond, the a s y l um c l a i m ha d be e n “ f

abr i c a t e d s ol e l yf

orthe purpos e of

obt a i ni ng s om e s ortof i m m i gr a t i on be ne f

i ti n thi s c ountrya nd ha [ d] nothi ng t o do w i th pol i t i c s a nd e ve ry thi ng t o do w i th . . . e c onom i c pr obl e m s . ” I d. a t46. T hi r d, the appl i c a t i on w a s g e n e r ic , u n d e ta ile d , a n d u n s p e c if ic . I d . P e titio n e r s ap p e a le d th e I J ’s d e c is io n to th e B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ”) . T he B IA af

fi rm ed w i tho utop i ni on and st at ed thatthe IJ ’ s dec i si on w as the fi nal agencydet erm i nat i on . P et i t i on er s there af t erm ov ed the B IA t o rec on si der i t s de c i s i on. T he ya r gue d tha tthe yha d e s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. I n e s s e n c e , th e ya s k e d th e B I A to r e - w e ig h th e e v id e n c e . T he B IA deni ed re consi dera t i on , fi nd i ng “ no basi s f or re consi dera t i on . ” P et i t i on er s then fi l ed the i nst antpet i t i on for r evi ew , cont endi ng thatthe B IA had abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng r e c ons i de r a t i on. 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 di s c r e t i on. A s s a ' a d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt orne yG e ne r a l , 332 F . 3d 1321, 1340- 41Petitioners fail to point out any leg al or factual er

ror in the B IA af

firmanc e. 1 3 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . T he B I A abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i t s de c i s i on “ pr ovi de s no r a t i ona l e xpl a na t i on, i ne xpl i c abl y de pa rt s f r om e s t abl i s he d pol i c i e s , i s de voi d of a n y r e a s o n in g , o rc o n ta in s o n lys u m m a ryo rc o n c lu s o rys ta te m e n ts .” M ic k e v ic iu te v. IN S , 32 7 F . 3d 11 59 , 11 62 (10th C i r. 20 03 ) ( qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). A ft erthe B IA has a ff

i rm ed an IJ ’ s orderof re m ov al , the al i en m ayse ek re consi dera t i on on the grou nd thatthe B IA has m ade al egal or fa ctual error. S ee I N A § 240( c ) ( 6) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 6) ; 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 1) . A m ot i on f or r e c ons i de r a t i on m us ts pe c i f y the e rr or s of

l a w orf a c ti n the pr e vi ous or de ra nd be supp ort ed by pert i nentautho ri ty. 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(c )( 6)(C ). “ A m ot i on that m erel y rep u b l i sh es th e reaso n s th ath ad fai l ed t o co n v i n ce th e tri b u n al i n th e fi rst pl a c e gi ve s the tr i buna l no r e a s on t o c ha nge i t s m i nd. ” A hm e d v. A s hc r of t , 388 F . 3d 24 7, 24 9 (7th C i r. 20 04 ) ( no t i ng thata m ot i on t o rec on si der “ ‘ i s are qu es tthat the [ B I A ] r e e xa m i ne i t s de c i s i on i n l i ghtof a ddi t i ona l l e ga l a r gum e nt s , ac ha nge of l a w , orpe rhaps a n a r gum e ntora s pe c tof the c a s e w hi c h w a s ove r l ooke d’ ” ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng P e t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on f or r e c ons i de r a t i on be c aus e the B I A di d notm a ke al e ga l orf a c tua l e rr ori n a f

f i rm i ng the IJ ’ s dec i si on . T he re cord supp ort s the af fi rm ance because P et i t i on er s 1 p r e s e n te d n o s p e c if

ic e v id e n c e th a t th e irf

a m ilys u f

f e r e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . B o th4

P et i t i o n er A v al o s’ s ap p l i cat i o n an d t est i m o n y referen ced th reat s fro m p o l i t i cal l ym i nde d de l i nque nt s butf a i l e d t o e xpl a i n the de l i nque nt s ’ pol i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i ons or th e irm o tiv a tio n f

o ra tta c k in g th e f

a m ily . F u rth e r , P e titio n e rA v a lo s d id n o t s ta te w ha the rf

a m i l y ’ s pol i t i c a l be l i e f

s w e r e a nd how the s e be l i e f s putthe m i n da nge rof p e r s e c u tio n . L a s tly , s h e p r o v id e d n o d a te s o rs p e c if ic d e ta ils r e g a r d in g a n yth r e a ts or ph ys i ca l att ac ks by these del i nq uent s. L as t l y, she poi nt s t o n o l egal or fa ctual e rr o rm a d e b y th e B I A in 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 . PETI TI O N D EN I ED .