FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCTOB ER 19, 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- 11975 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 96- 100- 388 & A 96- 100- 389 A L E X A N D E R C R U Z A Y A L A , L A U R A E V E L I N C O R R E A J I M E N E Z , 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 ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 19, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A l exander C ruz A ya l a ( “ C ruz” ) and hi s w i fe L auraE vel i n C orre a J i m enez , he r e i na f t e r“ P e t i t i one r s ” w he n r e f e rr e d t o c ol l e c t i ve l y , s e e k r e vi e w of the B oar d of2

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

its or de ra dopt i ng and a f

f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on Judge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of r e l i e f f r om r e m o v a l. F ir s t, P e titio n e r s c h a lle n g e th e I Ja n dB I A d e c is io n s d e n y in g th e ir appl i cat i on for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . S ec on d, P et i t i on er s argue that th e B I A e rr e dw h e n it d e n ie dth e irm o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . I. B ys t a tu t e , we m ayo n l yr e v i e w “ f i n a l o r d e r [ s ] o f

r e m o v a l . ” I NA § 242( a ) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 1) ; J a gge rnauth v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ yG e n. , 432 F . 3d 1346, 1350 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A n or de rof r e m ova l be c om e s f

i na l “ [ u] pon [the] di sm i ss alof an appeal by the [B IA ] . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 24 1. 1(a) . “ T o see k j ud i ci al r e vi e w of

a n or de rof

r e m ova l , a n a l i e n m us tf i l e ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w w i th the fe dera l appel l at e c ou rtw i thi n 3 0 d ay s of the B IA ’ s i ss uance of the fi nal order. ” J a gge rnauth, 432 F . 3d a t1350 ( c i t i ng 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 1) - ( 2) ) . T hi s l i m i t a t i on pe r i od i s “ m anda t orya nd j ur i s di c t i ona l . ” D a kane v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ yG e n. , 399 F . 3d 1269, 1272 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t i ng S t one v. I N S , 514 U . S . 386, 405, 115 S . C t . 15 37 , 15 49 , 13 1 L . E d. 2d 46 5 (19 95 )) . A n o rderof re m ov al“ i s notaf fe ct ed bythe s ubs e que ntf

i l i ng of am ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . ” S t one , 514 U . S . a t405, 115 S .C t. a t 1 5 4 9 . B ec ause P et i t i on er s di d n otfi l e apet i t i on for r evi ew of the B IA ’ s f i nal order o f r em o v al, th e m er it s o f th at o rd er , as w ell as th e m er it s o f th e u n d er lyin g IJ ’s3

de c i s i on, ar e out s i de ourj ur i s di c t i on. II. 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 ) , c e rt. deni ed, 54 3 U . S . 91 7 (20 04 ). M ot i on s t o rec on si der are di sf avored i n rem ov al pr oc e e di ngs . S e e I N S v. D ohe rty , 502 U . S . 314, 323, 112 S . C t . 719, 724- 25, 116 L . E d. 2d 82 3 (19 92 ) ( di sc ussi ng m ot i on s t o reopen and expl ai ni ng thatsuch m ot i ons ar e di s f

a vor e d be c aus e “ a s age ne r a l m a tt e r , e ve ryde l ayw orks t o the advant age of the depo rt abl e a l i en w ho w i shes m er el y t o rem ai n i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s ” ) . “ A m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rs ha l l s t a t e the r e a s ons f orthe m ot i on by s p e c i f y i n g th e e rr o r s o f

f a c to rl aw i n th e p r i o r[ BI A ] d e c i s i o n . ” 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . H a vi ng r e vi e w e d the r e c or d a nd the part i e s ’ br i e f s on appe a l , w e f

i nd no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . I n thi s c a s e , othe rthan the i ra s s e rt i ons tha tthe B I A ’ s c onc l us i ons r e g a r d in g th e irc a s e w e r e in c o rr e c t, P e titio n e r s d idn o t r a is e a n ys p e c if ic a lle g a tio n s o f

e rr o rin th e irm o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . S in c e r e ar g u in g th e m e r its o f ac a s e is n o t th e p u rp o s e o f am o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n , th e B I A d idn o t e rrin d e n y in g P e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n . A c c or di ngl y , the pe t i t i on i s de ni e d. D EN I ED