FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 12, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 05- 11013 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 29- 921- 834 E R I C K G I O V A N N I S A N D O V A L , P e titio n e r , 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

_________________________ ( O c t obe r12, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n D ec em ber 3, 19 98 , the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) ,An alien, such as Petitioner, is ineligible f or TPS if he has been convicted of any felony 1 or two or moremisdemeanors in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 1244.4(a) . The I NS’s succe ssor, the Department of H omeland Security , filed the motion. 2 2 al l egi ng thatthe P et i t i on er , E ri ck G i ov anni S ando val , a nat i ve of E l S al vado r, w as u n l a wf u l l y i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s , c o m m e n c e d r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s th i m . On M a y 5, 1999, P e t i t i one r , appe a r i ng be f or e a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) a nd re pres ent ed by coun se l , conceded remo vabi l i ty. O n Jul y 14, 19 99 , P et i t i on er appl i e d f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N atural i za t i on A ct(“ IN A ”) and the U ni t ed N at i on s C on vent i on A gai nstT orture (“ C A T ”) . O n O ct ob er12 , 19 99 , af t erhear i ng P et i t i on er ’ s app l i ca t i on , the IJ d e n i e d th e r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f a n d o r d e r e d P e t i t i o n e rr e m o v e d t o E l S a l v a d o r . On N o v em b er1 2 , 1 9 9 9 , P etit io n er , sti ll re p re se n ted b y c o u n se l, ap p ea led 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 I A ” ) . O n M ar ch 9, 20 01 , the A tt orney G ener al desi gn at ed E l S al vado r a s acoun try f o rw h ic h T e m p o r a ry P r o te c te d S ta tu s ( “T P S ” ) c o u ld b e s o u g h t b y c e r ta in o f its na t i ona l s r e s i di ng i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . S o tha tP e t i t i one rc oul d appl y f orT P S , the B IA , on June 26 , 20 01 , adm i ni stra t i vel y c l osed hi s app ea l . P et i t i on erthen app l i ed f orT P S , buthi s appl i c a t i on w a s de ni e d on the gr ound tha thi s c r i m i na l c onvi c t i ons r e n d e r e d h im in e lig ib le f o rT P S . T h e I N S th e r e a f te rm o v e d th e B I A to r e in s ta te 1 2 P e titio n e r ’s ap p e a l ( o f

th e I J ’s O c to b e r1 2 , 1 9 9 9 r e m o v a l o r d e r ) . T h e B I A s e n t aThe B IA dismissed the appeal beca use Petitioner failed to brief the a ppeal. When he 3 failed to brie f it, the I

NS filed a memora

ndum with the BIA which adopted as its brief theIJ ’s de c isi on denyingPe tition er re lie f a nd orderinghisremov al. Th eB IA ’ s o rd er

al s o s t at e d

th atth em o ti o nl a c ke d

m eri tan d

e xp l ain e d

why. 4Our review of thedenial of a motion to reconsider is limited to determining“whether 5 therehas been an exerc ise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of ex erc ise has been a rbitrar y or ca pricious.” SeeGarcia- Mir v. Smith, 766 F.2d 1478, 1490 ( 11th Cir. 1985) (quotation omitted) (addressinga motion to reopen) . Put another wa y, we review thedenial for an abuseof discretion. Assa’ad v. U .S. Attorney Gen., 332 F .3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). Th eB IA a

bu se s it s discretio n when it s de c isi on “ ‘pro vide s n o ratio nal e xplanatio n, inexplic a bly depar ts from established policies, is devoid of a ny rea soning, or

contains only

summary or conclusory

statements.’”See Mickeviciute v. I NS, 327 F.3d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Such is not the casehere . 3 c o p y o f th e m o tio n to P e titio n e r ’s a tto rn e y a n d to P e titio n e ro n J u ly 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 . N e ith e rr e s p o n d e d , s o o n S e p te m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , th e B I A is s u e d a n o r d e rb o th re i nst at i ng and d i sm i ss i ng P et i t i on er ’ s app ea l . O n D ec em ber 17, 20 04 , P et i t i on er , 3 havi ng ob t ai ned repl ac em entcoun se l , m ov ed the B IA t o “ re op en” hi s app ea l pu rs uantt o 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) . O n January26 , 20 05 , the B IA i ss ued an o rder ch aract eri zi n g th e m o t i o n as a m o t i o n t o reco n si d er an d d en yi n g i tas u n t i m el y. 4 P et i t i on erno w se eks r evi ew of the B IA ’ s order . A s r el i ef , hi s bri ef

as ks thatw e 5 r e m a nd the m a tt e rt o the [ B I A ] w i th i ns truc t i ons tha tthe D e pa r tm e ntof H o m e la n d S e c u r ity is s u e ac h a r g in g d o c u m e n t a s r e q u ir e d b yr e g u la tio n in order t o p rot ec t[hi s] ri gh tt o a de no vo de t e rm i na t i on on hi s appl i c a t i on f or hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f

or T P S , and/ or, i n the al t ernat i ve, thatthe m att erbe re m anded to th e [ B I A ] in o r d e rth a t [ h e ] b e a llo w e d a n o p p o r tu n ity to p r o v id e ab r ie f in s u p p o r t o f

h is ap p e a l [ o f

th e I J ’s r e m o v a l o r d e r ]. P e t i t i one r ’ s br i e f

a t16. A m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rade c i s i on of the B I A m us tbe f

i l e d w i thi n 30 da y s of4

the de c i s i on. 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 2) . A m ot i on t o r e ope n m us tbe f i l e d w i thi n 90 d a y s o f th e f in a l a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n in th e p r o c e e d in g s to b e r e o p e n e d . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . H e r e , P e titio n e r ’s m o tio n w a s f ile d w ith in 9 0 d a y s , b u t n o t w ith in 3 0 d a y s , o f

th e B I A ’s d is m is s a l o f

h is ap p e a l ( o n S e p te m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 4 ) . T h u s , if P e titio n e r ’s m o tio n w a s am o tio n to r e o p e n , it w a s tim e ly ; if am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r , it w a s u n tim e ly . D esp i t e th e factth atP et i t i o n er’ s co u n sel styl ed P et i t i o n er’ s m o t i o n as a m o ti o n to re o p en , th e B IA p ro p er ly ch ar ac terize d itas a m o ti o n to re co n sid er . “ A m o tio n to r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s s h a ll s ta te th e n e w f a c ts th a t w ill b e p r o v e n a t a he a r i ng t o be he l d i f

the m ot i on i s gr a nt e d a nd s ha l l be s uppor t e d by a f f i da vi t s or othe re vi de nt i a ry m a t e r i a l . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 1) . P e t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on di d not st at e a ny new fa ct s thatw ou l d b e e st abl i shed ata new hear i ng and, m oreover, w as n o t s u p p o r te d b y a n y a f f id a v its o re v id e n tia ry m a te r ia l. R a th e r , th e m o tio n s im p ly r e c ount e d the pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory of the c a s e ( w i th doc um e nt s f r om the pr oc e e di ngs a tt a c he d) a nd a s s e r t e d e rr or s of l a w . I n e s s e nc e , notw i ths t a ndi ng i t s s ty l e , the m ot i on w a s am ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . P e t i t i one re f f e c t i ve l y c onc e de s thi s , by not c h a lle n g in g th e B I A ’s c h a r a c te r iz a tio n o f th e m o tio n in h is b r ie f

. B e c au s e P e titio n e r ’s m o tio n w a s u n tim e ly . T h e B I A d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in tr e a tin g it a s u n tim e ly a n d f o rth a t r e a s o n d e n y in g it. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D