### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 26 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1384 9 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y D oc ke t N o. A 79- 407- 836 JUL IA N B EQ IRI, Petitioner, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Pe tit ionf or Re vie wof

aD ec isi on of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 26, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Jul ian B eq ir i, thr oughc ouns el , pe tit ion s f or r ev ie wof

tw o B oard

of Im m igration Appeals (“ BIA ”) dec ision s (1) dism issin g his appeal from the orderB ecause B eqiri’s rem ov al pro ceeding s co m m enced after April 1, 1997 , th e effectiv e date of the 1 I lleg al Im m ig ration Refo rm

and Im m ig rant R espon sibility

A ct (“I I RI RA ”), this ca se is g ov erned by the perm anent prov isions of the Im m ig ration and Nation ality A ct (“I NA ”), as am ended

by I I RI RA . GonzalezOro peza v. U. S. Att’y G en. , 3 21 F.3 d 1 331, 13 32 (11th Cir. 2003 ). 2 of the I m m igr at ionJud ge ( “ IJ ”) f

ind ing him

r em ova ble , and d eny ing his application for asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval, and relief under the United N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, I nhum an , or

D eg ra din g Treat m en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (C AT reli ef), 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 , 12 31 ; 8 C.F.R. § 208. 16( c) ; and ( 2) de ny ing his m oti on t o r ec onsi de r/re ope n. 1 O n a ppe al , Be qir i f

ir st c ha lle nge s th e BI A ’ s Apr il 27, 200 4, de ci sio n dis m iss ing his appe al of

the I J’ s de ci sio n. H ow ev er , it appe ar s th at

w e do n ot ha ve juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er t hi s cl ai m . W e re vie w“ que sti ons of

sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n de novo .” Brooks v. A shc rof t, 283 F . 3d 1 268, 127 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . W e ar e “ obl igate d to inquir e int o subject- m atter j urisdictio n sua spo nte whenever it m ay be lacking.” Cadet v. Bulger , 37 7 F .3d11 73 , 11 79 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on an d c it at io n o m it te d) . Whil e w e ge ne ra lly

have j ur isd ic tio n to r ev ie wf ina l or de rs of

r em ova l, the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wm

ust be f ile d w ith in 3 0 day s of

the date of

the f ina l or de r of rem ov al . See IN A§ 24 2( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ), 8 U . S. C. § 12 52( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 ). W e have held that “ [s] ince the statutory lim it for filing a petition for reviewin an im m igr at ionpr oc ee din g is ‘ m an dator y and j ur isd ic tio na l, ’ it

is not sub j ec t t o3

equitable toll ing.” D ak

anev . U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 399 F. 3d 12 69, 1272 n .3 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (c iti ng Ston e v. INS, 51 4 U.S. 3 86 , 40 5, 1 15 S. Ct. 1 53 7, 1 54 9 (1 99 5) ). A m oti on t o r ec onsi de r fi le d w iththe BI Adoe s no t su spe nd the f ina lity of the un de rlyin g B IA or de r an d d oe s n otto ll th e rev ie w per io d. Sto ne , 514 U . S. a t 40 5- 06, 115 S . Ct . a t 15 49 ( co nstru ing the f orm er 90- day pe ri od f or f ili ng a pe tit ionf or reviewunder the IN A § 106(a)( 1), 8 U .S .C. § 1105 a(a) ). W e conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the BI A’ s final order of r em ova l i ssu ed

on Apr il 27, 200 4. B eq ir i w as r equir ed to fi le ape tit ionf

or rev ie w of h is un de rlyin g c la im s b y May 27, 2 00 4, an d h e fai le d t o d o s o. A lth oughBe qir i f

ile d am oti on t o r ec onsi de r (o r re ope n) the BI A ’ s di sm iss al of his ap pe al on M ay

26, 200 4, the f

ili ng d id n ot t oll the li m itatio ns p er iod f or f ili ng a pe tit ionf or r ev ie win thi s C ourt. Mo re ove r, Be qir i f ile d hi s pe tit ionf

or r ev ie wof the BIA ’ s order deny ing hi s m otion to reconsider on August 2, 2004 , which was m or e th an30 da y s af

te r th e BIA’s fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al . Be qir i ne xt arg ue s th at

the BI Aabuse d it s di sc re tio n by not a ddr es sin g th e questio ns raised in his m otion to reconsider. In his m otion , B eqiri indicated that his reasons for seeking reconsideration were that additio nal docum ents wer e ne ce ssary to m ak e a fa ir

a sse ssm en t of

the c as e as the BI Aha d no t do ne so i n th e first place. W e re view the BI A’ s denial of a m otion to reconsider or re open for an4

ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e A ssa ’a d v . U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 332 F . 3d 1 321, 134 1 ( 11th Ci r. 200 3) . “ Judi ci al r ev ie wof de nia ls o f dis cr et ion ar

y r el ie f inc ide nt t o deportation proceedings . . . is lim ited to determ ining ‘ whether there has been an exercise of adm inistrative dis cretion and whether the m atter of e xercise has been arbitrar y or capric ious.’ ” Se e G arc ia- M ir v . Sm ith , 766 F. 2d 14 78, 1490 (11t h Cir. 1985 ) (c itatio n om itt ed ) (a ddr es sin g am oti on t o r eo pe n) . T he BI Aabuse s it s dis cr et ionwhe n it s de ci sio n “pr ovi de s no r at ion al e xpl an at ion , ine xpl ic ab ly de part s f ro m e sta bli she d po lic ie s, is de voi d of any r ea soni ng, or

c ont ai ns o nly summ ary or conclusory

statem ents.” Mick

eviciute v. INS, 327 F . 3d 1 159, 116 2 (10th Cir. 2003) (quotation om itted). W e do not review issues that are not ar gued in th e p et it io n. See R owe v. Schreiber , 13 9 F .3d13 81 , 13 82 n.1 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Am oti on t o r ec onsi de r “ sha ll spe ci fy the e rr or s of

lawor f ac t i n th e pr ev io us ord er an d s ha ll be supp orte d b y pe rti ne ntau th or it y .” INA § 240( c) (6 )( C) , 8 U . S. C. § 12 29a (c )( 6) (C ); se e als o 8 C . F. R. § 10 03. 2( b) (1 ). F or th atreas on , m ot io ns to reco ns id er ar e d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m m ot io ns to reo pe n. Zhao v. U

.S. De p’t of Justice , 265 F . 3d 8 3, 90- 91 ( 2d C ir . 200 1) ; Chudsh evid v. INS , 641 F. 2d 78 0, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1981). “ A m otion to reconsider asserts that at the tim e of the Boar d’ s previous d ecision an error w as m ade.” Zh ao , 265 F. 3d at 90 ( int er na l qu otatio n om itt ed ). Whe n th e BI Ar ec onsi de rs one of it s pr ior5

de ci sio ns, it

r ee va luate s it s pr ior

de ci sio n onthe f

ac tua l r ec or d a s it

e xis te d at the ti m e th e o rig in al de ci si on was re nd ered . Id . In contrast, a m otion to reopen asserts that the prior proceedings sho uld be reopened for the introductio n of new ev id en ce s o ane w dec is io n m ay be ren de redon th e b as is of t he ne w evi de nc e. Id . at 90; se e als o IN A § 240(c)( 7)(B) , 8 U .S .C. § 1229 a(c) (7)(B ); 8 C. F. R. § 100 3.2(c) (1). Mot ion s to r eo pe n are dis favor ed , e spe ci al ly in a re m ova l pr oc ee din g,

“ w he re , a s age ne ra l m atte r, e ve ry de lay w orks t o th e advanta ge of the de porta

ble alien who w ishes m erely

to rem ain in the United States. ” IN S v . D ohe rty , 502 U. S. 314, 323 , 112 S . Ct . 719 , 724 -2 5 ( 1992 ). “ [T ] he re are a t l ea st thr ee ind ep en de nt gr ound s up on whic h th e [B IA ] m ay de ny am oti on t o r eo pe n: 1) f ai lur e to es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se ; 2) f

ai lur e to i ntr oduc e ev ide nc e that w as m at er ia l and previousl y

unavailable; and 3) a determ ination that despite the alien’ s statuto ry el ig ib il it y forrel ie f, he or s he is no t en ti tl edto a fav or ab le ex erci se of d is cret io n.” A l N ajj ar v . A shc rof

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . The proponent of a m otionto reopen face s a “ heavy burden and [m

ust] present[] ev ide nc e of

suc h anatur e that the Bo ar d is satis fi ed that i f pr oc ee din gs b ef

or e the [I J] w er e re ope ne d, w itha ll the a tte ndant d el ay s, the ne we vid en ce of fe re d w oul d likely change the result in the case. ” M atter of Co elho , 20 I . & N . D ec . 464 , 4736

(B . I. A . 199 2) ( ci tin g D ohe rty , 502 U . S. a t 32 3, 112 S . Ct . a t 72 4- 25) ( quot at ion s om it te d) ). We c o n cl u d e t h atth e B IA d i dn o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o ni nd en yin g Be q i ri ’s m oti on t o r ec onsi de r. B eq ir i di d no t r ai se any arg um en ts o r spe ci fy

any e rr or s of law or fac t in the BIA ’ s or IJ’ s decision as required by 8 U. S. C. § 122 9a(c)( 6)(C) an d 8 C . F. R. § 10 03. 2( b) (1 ). T o th e ex te nt that the m oti on i s c onsi de re d am oti on to r eo pe n, Be qir i’ s arg um en t i n hi s br ie f to this Co urt do es not a ddr es s ho wthe ne we vid en ce und er

m ine s th e IJ ’ s de ci sio n. T houg h he m en tio ns that hi s r ea sons fo r as kin g f

or r ec onsi de ratio n w er e som eh owc ont ai ne d inthe doc um en ts h e submitt ed to the BI A , he doe s no t arg ue howthe se doc um en ts w oul d w ar rant a ne wde ci sio n ba se d onthe ir c ont en ts. H e onl y

arg ue s th at

the BI Aand I J e rr ed

in the ir e va luatio n of

( or f ai lur e to e va luate ) the f

ac ts b ef or e the m , a t the ti m e of

the ir de ci sio n. As Be qiri onlyaddressed err ors that he asserts occurre d before the IJ an d B IA , and n ot h owthe ne we vid en ce w oul d c hange the out co m e of the c as e, he ha s thus a bandon ed any arg um en t that the BI Aabuse d it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing his m ot io n. Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d, and h av ing c onsi de re d th e br ie fs of the part ie s, we di sc ern no rev ers ib le erro r. PE TITION DISM ISSED IN P AR T, DEN IED IN PA RT.