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 23, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 14672

________________________

B I A N o s . A 95- 553- 292 & A 95- 553- 293 B E A T R I Z H E L E N A C A L L E , O C T A V I O A L B E R T O M O L I N A A R A N G O , e t a l. 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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 23, 2007) B ef ore D U B IN A and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O O G L E R , * D i stri ctJudg e.

____________________ * Honora ble L . Scott Coogler, United States District Judg e for the Northern District of Ala bama, sitti ngby designation.Congress abolished the I NS on March 1, 2003, a

nd replaced it with the Department of 1 Homeland Security . SeeHomeland Security Act, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 2 D U B IN A , C i rc ui tJudg e: B ea tri z H el ena C al l e ( “ C al l e” ), on behal f of her se l f, her husband , and h er tw o ch i l d ren , p et i t i o n s th i s co u rtfo r rev i ew o f th e B o ard o f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ( “ B I A ” ) de ni a l of

he rm ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the B I A ’ s de ni a l of

he rm ot i on t o reopen. T he B IA deni ed C al l e’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der a s num er i ca l l y barre d unde r8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 2) . F orthe r e a s ons s e tf or th m or e f

ul l y be l ow , w e de ny th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I . B AC KG RO UN D C a l l e , he rhus ba nd, a nd the i rtw o c hi l dr e n, a l l na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of C ol om bi a , e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s a s vi s i t or s f orpl e a s ur e . A l l r e m a i ne d be y ond the i rauthor i z e d da t e s , a nd, i n J ul y 2002, the f orm e rI m m i gr a t i on a nd N atural i za t i on S ervi ce (“ IN S ”) se rved them w i th n ot i ce s t o app ea r, char gi ng them 1 w i th rem ov abi l i ty pursuantt o the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) § 23 7(a) (1)( B ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B ). C a l l e f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I N A §§ 208, 241, a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) , 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 16 (c ). In her app l i ca t i on , C al l e i nd i ca t ed that3

she s ou gh tre l i ef

base d o n the pers ec ut i on she s uffe re d from the R evol ut i on ary A rm e d F o r c e s o f

C o lo m b ia( “F A R C ” ) d u e to h e rp o litic a l o p in io n a n d m e m b e r s h ip i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup. A f t e rhol di ng ar e m ova l he a r i ng, the i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ( “I J ” ) d is m is s e d C a lle ’s ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m a s u n tim e lyw ith o u t a s how i ng of

e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd de ni e d he rappl i c a t i ons f or w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al an d C A T re li ef o n th e m er it s. C alle ap p ea led th e I J’s de c i s i on t o the B I A , a r gui ng tha tthe I J f a i l e d t o c ons i de rorpr ope r l y w e i gh the e v id e n c e , in c lu d in g in f

o rm a tio n r e g a r d in g th e c o u n try c o n d itio n s in C o lo m b ia . See 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . T he B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, i ncl ud i ng the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatnei ther e xtra ordi naryno r c hang ed ci rc um st ance s e x c u s e d th e u n tim e ly f

ilin g . C al l e there af

t erm ov ed the B IA t o rec on si der i t s dec i si on , m ai nt ai ni ng that the B I A ha d notc ons i de r e d a l l of the e vi de nc e i n he rc a s e northe c urr e nt c o n d itio n s in C o lo m b ia . S h e a ls o a r g u e d th a t th e c h a n g e d c o n d itio n s in C o lo m b ia s e rv e d a s e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s f o rh e rla te f

ilin g o f h e ra s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . T he B IA deni ed C al l e’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , fi nd i ng thatC al l e had pr e s e nt e d onl y “ age ne r a l s t a t e m e ntr e ga r di ng de t e r i or a t i ng c ondi t i ons , a nd [ ha d] n o t s u p p o r te d [ th a t] s ta te m e n t w ith a n y e v id e n c e .” ( R . V o l. 1 p . 5 9 .) C a l l e ne xtf

i l e d w i th the B I A am ot i on t o r e ope n i t s de ni a l of he rm ot i on f

or re consi dera t i on , and she al so fi l ed a m ot i on for s t ayof depo rt at i on . C al l e a rgued4

thather m ot i on t o reopen w as base d o n chang ed coun trycond i t i on s. S he as se rt ed tha ts he w a s at a r ge tof

the F A R C , a nd tha tthe F A R C ’ s t e rr or i s m thr oughout C o lo m b iah a d c o n tin u e d a n d in te n s if ie d . I n s u p p o r t o f

h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n , C a lle s ubm i tt e d the f

ol l ow i ng e vi de nc e : ( 1) apol i c e r e por ttha tC a l l e f i l e d i n M a r c h 2002 a l l e gi ng the f

e l ony of i l l e ga l c ons tr a i nt ; ( 2) al e tt e rf r om he rbr othe ra tt e s t i ng t o the t e rr o r i s m c au s e d b y th e FA RC i n Co l o mb i a ; ( 3 ) aJ u n e 2 0 0 5 a r t i c l e f r o m BBC N e w s d e t a i l i n g aFA RC a tt a c ko n Co l o mb i a n tr o o p s a n d i n d i c a t i n g th a tth e FA RC w as st i l l a s trong gu erri l l a a rm y; (4) untra nsl at ed consol at i on ca rds; (5) a S e pt e m be r2005 B B C N e w s a r t i c l e i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe F A R C w oul d r e m a i n s tr ong de s pi t e ane w C ol om bi a n l a w ; ( 6) a n O c t obe r2005 B B C N e w s a r t i c l e de t a i l i ng a re bel att ac k o n a C ol om bi an t ow n; (7) aJanu ary 200 6 art i cl e f rom the T oron t o S t ar de t a i l i ng ac l a s h be tw e e n the F A R C a nd the C ol om bi a n A rm y ; ( 8) a n A pr i l 2005 H u m an R i g h t s W at ch art i cl e ex p l ai n i n g th atth e F A R C h ad b een o rd ered t o cease i t s use of gas c yl i nd erbo m bs; (9) aJul y 200 5 M i am i H er al d art i cl e i nd i ca t i ng that th e F A R C w as i n v o l v ed i n al l asp ect s o f C o l o m b i an l i fe, i n cl u d i n g p o l i t i cs, k id n ap in g , a n d d ru g a n d w e ap o n s tr a f f ic k in g , a n d th a t th e F A R C w a s in v o lv e d in i nt ernat i on al re l at i on s; and (10 ) acopy of an I-130 p et i t i on for a l i en re l at i ve that C a lle ’s s is te r , aU n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n , f ile d o n C a lle ’s b e h a lf

. T h e B IA d en i ed C al l e’ s m o t i o n t o reo p en , fi n d i n g th atsh e fai l ed t o est ab l i sh a p r im a fa c ie c a s e o f

e lig ib ility f

o ra s y lu m b a s e d u p o n c h a n g e d c o u n try c o n d itio n s .5

T he B IA di d n otconsi der the consol at i on ca rds thatC al l e s ub m i tt ed as evi dence because tho se ca rds w er e nottra nsl at ed. T he B IA further f ou nd thatthe po l i ce re po rtand con sol at i on ca rds w er e notnew or previ ou sl y unavai l abl e, as re qu i re d for am ot i on t o reopen u nd er8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) . T he B IA al so det erm i ned that C a lle ’s r e m a in in g e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t C o lo m b iar e m a in e d “ac o u n try f ille d w ith c i vi l s tr i f e a nd ge ne r a l c ondi t i ons of l a w l e s s ne s s de s pi t e the pe a c e a c c or ds , ” but th a tth e e v i d e n c e w a s n o te n o u g h t o w a rr a n tr e o p e n i n g Ca l l e ’ s p r o c e e d i n g s . ( R. V ol . 1 p . 25 . ) C a lle th e n f

ile d a“m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rd e n ia l o f m o tio n to r e o p e n .” C a lle a r gue d tha tthe B I A i m pr ope r l y f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe da nge ri n C ol om bi atha ts he w ou l d fac e i f f

orce d t o return. S he m ai nt ai ned thather e vi dence s ho w ed changed coun trycond i t i on s thatpu ther l i fe i n m ore danger. C al l e a l so subm i tt ed tra nsl at ed c o p ie s o f th e c o n d o le n c e c a r d s , w h ic h o f f e r e d s y m p a th y f

o rth e lo s s o f

C a lle he r s e l f a nd he rs on. S he a ddi t i ona l l y s ubm i tt e d thr e e ne w s a r t i c l e s : ( 1) a2006 C N N .c o m a r tic le in d ic a tin g th a t th e F A R C h a d d e c la r e d w a ro n as m a lle rg u e rr illa gr oup; ( 2) aM a y 2006 V O A N e w s a r t i c l e e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe C ol om bi a n pr e s i de nt b l a me d th e FA RC f

o ra n a tt a c ko n a n e l e c t o r a l o f f i c e ; a n d ( 3 ) a2 0 0 5 a r t i c l e f r o m a R u s s ia n n e w s s o u r c e d e ta ilin g th e F A R C ’s k illin g o f p o lic e o f

f ic e r s . T he B IA deni ed C al l e’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der on the grou nd s thati tw as num e r i c a l l y ba rr e d unde r8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 2) be c aus e C a l l e pr e vi ous l y f i l e d a6

m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ri n the s a m e pr oc e e di ngs . T he B I A f ound tha t , “ [ t ] he r e g u la tio n s p r o v id e th a t m o tio n s to r e c o n s id e rs h a ll b e lim ite d to o n e m o tio n to r e c o n s i d e ri n a n y c a s e p r e v i o u s l y th e s u b j e c to f af i n a l d e c i s i o n b y th e [ BI A ] . ” ( R. V o l. 1 p . 2 .) C a l l e a r gue s be f

or e thi s c our ttha tthe B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng a s n u m e r ic a lly b a rr e d h e rm o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e d e n ia l o f h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n . C a l l e c ont e nds tha tthe i ns t a ntm ot i on t o r e c ons i de rw a s ane w m ot i on r e que s t i ng th e B IA t o reco n si d er i t s d en i al o f h er m o t i o n t o reo p en , as o p p o sed t o h er fi rst m o ti o n to re co n sid erre q u es ti n g th at th e B IA re co n sid erit s o rd eraf firm in g th e I J’s i ni t i a l de t e rm i na t i on of

r e m ovabi l i ty . T hus , s he m a i nt a i ns tha tthe i ns t a ntm ot i on t o reco n si d er w as not

as e c o n d m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e u n d e r ly in g d e c is io n to d e n y h e rap p lic a tio n s f

o ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e c ons i de rf orabus e of di sc re t i on . ” A s s a’ ad v . U . S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 33 2 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 41 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A c c o r d in g to th e r e g u la tio n s g o v e rn in g n u m e r ic a l lim its o n m o tio n s to re consi der: A pa r ty m a y f

i l e onl y one m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ra nygi ve n de c i s i on a nd m a y nots e e k r e c ons i de r a t i on of ade c i s i on de ny i ng apr e vi ous m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . I n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs pur s ua ntt o s e c t i on 240 of the7

[I N A ] , an al i en m ayfi l e onl y one m ot i on t o rec on si der adeci si on that th e al i en i s rem o v ab l e fro m th e U n i t ed S t at es. 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) . C a l l e f i l e d he ror i gi na l m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rs e e ki ng r e c ons i de r a t i on of the B I A ’s a f f irm a n c e o f

th e I J ’s in itia l r e m o v ab ility d e te rm in a tio n . T h e r e a f te r , C a lle f i l e d am ot i on t o r e ope n ba s e d upon c ha nge d c ountry c ondi t i ons . C a l l e ’ s ne xt m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rr e que s t e d the B I A ’ s r e c ons i de r a t i on of i t s or de rde ny i ng C a lle ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n . T h e B I A f o u n d th is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rn u m e r ic a lly barr ed. T he B IA st at ed that“ [t ] he re gu l at i on s provi de thatm ot i on s t o rec on si der shal l be l i m i t ed t o o ne m ot i on t o rec on si der i n any ca se previ ou sl y the subj ec tof a fi nal deci si on by the [B IA ] . ” ( R . V ol . 1 p . 25 . ) T he B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the r e gul a t i on i s br oa d a nd e xt e nds the l a ngua ge b e y o n d its p la in m e a n in g . T h e p la in la n g u a g e o f § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) d o e s n o t e x p lic itly p r o h ib it s u c h af

ilin g . I n f

a c t, th e r e g u la tio n p r o v id e s th a t, w h e r e a n a lie n is in re m ov al proceedi ng s pursuantt o IN A § 2 40 , w hi ch proceedi ng s the IN S i ni t i at ed agai nstC al l e, “ an al i en m ayfi l e onl y one m ot i on t o rec on si der a de c is i on that the al i en is r em ovab le f

rom the U

ni ted Stat es .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e r e g u la tio n d o e s n o t p r o v id e th a t a n a lie n m a y f ile o n ly o n e m o tio n to reco n si d er th ro u g h o u th er en t i re p ro ceed i n g s. T o th e co n trary, th e reg u l at i o n ’ s u se of the si ng ul art erm s “ a dec i si on ” a nd “ any gi ven d ec i si on ” s ug gest s thatan al i en8

m a y f i l e am ot i on t o r e c ons i de ra s t o e ac h de c is i on b y th e B I A th a t a n a lie n is re m o v ab le. U n d erth e lan g u ag e o f th e r eg u lati o n , th en , w e c o n clu d e th at C alle’s m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n w a s n o t n u m e r ic a lly ba rr e d be c aus e i tw a s the f i r s tm ot i on t o r e c ons i de rtha tB I A de c i s i on. A s t o the m er i t s of herm ot i on t o rec on si der, C al l e a l so ar gu es thather m ot i on t o r e ope n, a nd he ri ns t a ntm ot i on t o r e c ons i de r , pr ovi de d s uf f i c i e nt evi dence t o d em on stra t e c hang ed coun trycond i t i on s thatw ou l d h ave a ff ec t ed her appl i c a t i ons f

orr e l i e f . “ 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 o tio n b y s p e c if

y in g th e e rr o r s o f

f a c t o rla w in th e p r io r[ B I A ] d e c is io n a n d s h a ll be supp ort ed by pert i nentautho ri ty. ” 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b)(1). H ow ever , “ [a ] m ot i on thatm er el y r epub l i shes the re as on s thathad fai l ed t o con vi nce the tri bu nal i n the fi rs tpl ac e gi ves the tri bu nal no re as on t o chang e i t s m i nd . ” A hm ed v. A s h c r o ft , 388 F . 3d 247, 249 ( 7th C i r . 2004) . T he r e f or e , m e r e l yr e i t e r a t i ng a r g u m e n ts p r e v io u s ly p r e s e n te d to th e B I A d o e s n o t c o n s titu te “s p e c if y in g . . e rr o r s o f f a c t o rla w ” a s r e q u ir e d f o ras u c c e s s f

u l m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . H e r e , th e B I A m a d e n o d e te rm in a tio n a s to w h e th e rC a lle ’s m o tio n to re consi der a l l eged err ors of f ac tor l aw thatthe B IA com m i tt ed i n d enyi ng her m o tio n to r e o p e n ; r a th e r , th e B I A o n ly d is m is s e d C a lle ’s m o tio n a s n u m e r ic a lly barr ed. T he G ov ernm entno nethel es s argues thatC al l e’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der9

fa i l ed on the m er i t s bec ause her c l ai m thatthe B IA di d n otconsi der the evi dence s h e s u b m itte d in s u p p o r t o f h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n w a s n o t s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d . B e c au s e th e B I A d i d n o ta d d r e s s th e m e r i t s o f C a l l e ’ s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r , we m u std et erm i n e w h eth er w e m ay d eci d e C al l e’ s case o n th e m eri t s i n th e fi rst i n st an ce, as th e G o v ern m en tu rg es. T he S up re m e C ou rthas e xp l ai ned that , i n cas es on appeal w here the B IA has no taddres se d a part i cul ari ss ue thata pet i t i on erpu tbefore i t , “ the prop ercourse , exce pti n rar e c i rc um st ance s, i s t o rem and t o the agency f or addi t i on al i nv es t i gat i on or expl anat i on . ” IN S v. V en tu ra , 537 U . S . 12, 16, 123 S . C t . 353, 355 ( 2002) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I n V en tu ra , th e B IA af

firm ed an IJ ’s de ni a l of a s y l um on one gr ound, butdi d nota ddr e s s the I J ’ s a l t e rna t i ve hol di ng tha ti m pr ove d c ountry c ondi t i ons w e r e s uc h tha tno r e a l i s t i c thr e a tof pe r s e c ut i on r e m a in e d . I

d. at1 3 , 1 2 3 S . C t . at3 5 4 . O n ap p eal , th e N i n th C i rcu i tn o n eth el ess a d d r e s s e d th e m e r its o f

th e c o u n try c o n d itio n s is s u e w ith o u t r e m a n d to th e B I A . I d. a t 1 4 , 1 2 3 S . C t. a t 3 5 4 . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e v e r s e d , h o ld in g th a t th e N in th C i r c ui t“ s houl d ha ve appl i e d the or di na ry ‘ r e m a nd’ rul e ” be c aus e the B I A ha d “ not ye tconsi dere d the ‘ changed ci rc um st ance s’ i ss ue. ” I d. a t17- 18, 123 S . C t . a t355- 56. T he S upr e m e C our tnot e d tha tthe c ountry r e por tw a s a m bi guous aboutthe evi dence t o b e c on si dere d and thatre m and cou l d l ea d t o the pres ent at i on of further evi dence of curr entcond i t i on s, gi ven thatfi ve ye ar s had el apse d si nce the re po rtSee H ussain v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 229 Fe d. Appx. 861, 865 n.5 (finding that ca se pre sented 2 a “rareinstance”when remand wa s unnece ssary beca use petitioner admitted that he would not be entitled to relief if

the matter w ererema

nded to the B IA). 10 w a s w r itte n . I

d. a t 1 7 , 1 2 3 S . C t. a t 3 5 6 . S i m i l a r l y , i n G onz ale s v . T hom as , 54 7 U . S . 18 3, 12 6 S . C t . 16 13 (200 6) (per curi am ), the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe N i nth C i rc ui terroneou sl y det erm i ned an a lte rn a tiv e is s u e n o t r e a c h e d b y th e B I A r a th e rth a n r e m a n d in g to th e B I A . I d. at 186- 87, 126 S . C t . a t1614- 15. I n s o hol di ng, the C our tnot e d tha ti tc oul d “ f i nd no sp ec ial circu m stan ce h er e th at m ig h t h av e ju stified th e N in th C ircu it ’s det erm i nat i on of the m att eri n the fi rs ti nst ance . ” I d. a t 1 8 7 , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 1 6 1 5 . T h i s co u rth as n o tad d ressed th e ap p l i cab i l i ty o f th e “ rare circum st an ces” e xc e pt i on t o the “ or di na ry ‘ r e m a nd’ rul e ” i n af a c tua l s c e na r i o s uc h a s the one pr e s e nt e d i n thi s c a s e . R e c e nt l y , the F our th C i r c ui tf a c e d the i s s ue of

w he the rthe 2 B I A e rr e d i n de ny i ng ape t i t i one r ’ s m ot i on t o r e ope n a nd di s pos i ng of hi s m ot i on to r e m a n d w ith o u t e x p lic itly a d d r e s s in g th e m o tio n to r e m a n d . H ussai n v. G on zales , 47 7 F . 3d 15 3, 15 5 (4th C i r. 20 07 ). T he courtdet erm i ned thatthe B IA h a d e rr e d in f

a ilin g to a d d r e s s H u s s a in ’s m o tio n to r e m a n d , w h ic h m o tio n H u s s a in a r gue d w a s ne c e s s a ry be c aus e he w a s e l i gi bl e f ora n a dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus , butthe c o u r t n o n e th e le s s d e n ie d H u s s a in ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . I

d. at15 5-56 . T he court de t e rm i ne d tha tH us s a i n’ s c a s e f i tw i thi n the e xc e pt i on t o the “ or di na ry ‘ r e m a nd’ rul e” because H ussa i n’ s c as e i nv ol ved a l egal qu es t i on , as op po se d t o the fa ctualOther c ircuit s h avedetermine d th at Ventu radoes not require automatic remand at the 3 findingof an error

by the B IA. See , e.g., Gh e bremedh in v. A sh c ro ft , 3 92 F .3 d 2 41 , 2 42 -4 3 ( 7th Cir.2004) (statingthat it is notusurpingthe B IA’s fact-findingrole by reversingthe IJ ’s elig ibility deter mination inst ead of

rema nding to the B IA bec ause thedeter mination is contrary to t helaw) ; Almaghzar v. Gonzales , 457 F.3d 915, 923 n.11 ( 9th Cir. 2006) (conc luding that the BIA had de cided the merits of the petitioner’ s CAT claim and determiningthat neither Ventu ra nor Thomasrequirethe circuit courts to “remand an issue to the ag ency when the ag ency

has alre ady considere d the issue,” the c ourt deferre d to the BIA’s findingand denie d the petition for review), cert. denied, 1 27 S. Ct . 1 83 9 ( 20 07 ); Zhao v. Gonzales , 4 04F .3 d 2 95 , 3 05 , 3 10 -1 1 ( 5th Cir.2005) (grantingthe petition for review and remandingto the BIA as to the B IA’s denial of the petitioner’s a sylum application and motion to reopen, but re fusingto remand a s to the question of per secution bec ause theBIA had already decide d the issue).

11 que s t i ons tha tw e r e a ti s s ue i n V en tu ra a nd T

hom as . I d. at15 7. T he courtthen de t e rm i ne d tha tH us s a i n w a s i ne l i gi bl e f orr e l i e f be c aus e he c oul d note s t abl i s h a p r im a fa c ie c a s e f

o rth e a d ju s tm e n t o f

h is s ta tu s , “ale g a l, n o t af a c tu a l, concl usi on . ” I

d. at15 8. T he courtthere fore hel d that , “ [b] ec ause the re sul tof a r e m a n d to th e B o a r d is af o r e g o n e c o n c lu s io n s u c h th a t r e m a n d w o u ld a m o u n t to no thi ng m ore than a m er e f orm al i ty, w e f

i nd thatthe V

en tu ra ‘ rare circum st an ces’ exce pt i on appl i es . ” I

d. 3 C a lle ’s c a s e p r e s e n ts “r a r e c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” s u c h th a t r e m a n d is u n n e c e s s a ry .12

In thi s c as e, un l i ke V

en tu ra a nd T

hom as , and l i ke H

u s s a in , th e u n d e c id e d is s u e is l egal , no tfa ctual . M oreover, un l i ke H u s s a in , th e le g a l is s u e in th is c a s e is procedural . T he i ss ue the B IA avoi ded w i th i t s num er i ca l -barho l di ng w as w hether C a l l e s pe c i f

i e d “ e rr or s of

f a c torl a w i n the pr i or[ B I A ] de c i s i on” a nd s uppor t e d the m o tio n w ith p e r tin e n t au th o r ity . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . D e c id in g w h e th e rC a lle m e t th o s e r e q u ir e m e n ts is n o t a n in q u iry u p o n w h ic h th e B I A c o u ld “b r in g its e xpe r t i s e t o be a r. . . e va l ua t e the e vi de nc e . . . m a ke a n i ni t i a l de t e rm i na t i on [ a nd, there by] hel p a courtl at erdet erm i ne w hether i t s dec i si on exce eds the l ee w aythat the l aw prov i des. ” T

hom as , 547 U . S . a t186- 87, 126 S . C t . a t1615 ( quot i ng V en tu ra , 53 7 U . S . at17 , 12 3 S . C t . at35 3). Iti s r ather a n o bj ec t i ve, procedural i nqui ry : s he e i the rs pe c i f i e d e rr or s a nd s uppor t e d the m w i th pe r t i ne ntauthor i ty , or s he di d not . T hus , i n the s e “ r a r e c i r c um s t a nc e s , ” w e f e e l c om f or t abl e de c i di ng the is s u e le f t u n r e s o lv e d b y th e B I A in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . I n h e rm o tio n to r e c o n s id e rth e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n , C a lle ar gu ed thatthe evi dence s he subm i tt ed i n sup po rtof her m ot i on t o reopen e s tab lis h e d th a t th e r e w e r e c h a n g e d c o u n try c o n d itio n s th a t w o u ld p u t h e rlif e in da nge ri n C ol om bi a . S he a l s o s ubm i tt e d tr a ns l a t e d c opi e s of the c ons ol a t i on c a r ds a n d th r e e n e w s a r tic le s th a t d e s c r ib e d th e F A R C ’s p r e s e n c e in C o lo m b ia . H o w e v e r , h e ra r g u m e n ts o f f e r e d n o th in g m o r e th a t r e ite r a tio n o f h e ra s s e r tio n s in h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n . T h e s e w e r e is s u e s th e B I A a lr e a d y h a d c o n s id e r e d .13

M o re o v er , th e c o n so lati o n ca rd s w er e n o t l in k ed in an y w ay to th e F A R C ’s pres ence i n C ol om bi a or i t s prose cut i on of C al l e, no r di d h erthree new s art i cl es offe r a ny further e vi dence than thatal re ady pre se nt ed i n C al l e’ s num er ou s art i cl es tha ts he s ubm i tt e d i n s uppor tof he rm ot i on t o r e ope n. A c c or di ngl y , C a l l e di d not a d e q u a te ly s p e c if

y e rr o r s o f

f a c t o rla w in th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f C a lle ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . D es pi t e the B IA ’ s e rr on eous det erm i nat i on thatC al l e’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der th e B IA ’s d en ial o f h erm o ti o n to re o p en w as n u m er ically b ar re d , w e d en y C alle’s pet i t i on for r evi ew because herar gu m ent s i n h erm ot i on t o rec on si der a re m e r itle s s . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.