FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JANUARY 8, 2007 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- 13744 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 79- 505- 927 & A 79- 505- 928 L I N A R O C I O O S O R I O , D A N I E L A L B E R T O P A R R A , 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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 8, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C ol om bi an nat i ves and ci t i ze ns L i na R oci o O sori o and her husband , D ani el A l be rt o P a rr a , pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

the de c i s i on of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e c ons i de ri t s pr e vi ous de c i s i on di s m i s s i ng the i rappe a l f r om the I m m i gr a t i on Judge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rof r e m ova l a nd de ni a l of a 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 at i o n al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) an d rel i ef u n d er th e U n i t ed N at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt (“ C A T ”) . O sori o and P arrachal l enge bo th o f the B IA ’ s order s on the grou nd that the I J ’ s de c i s i on w a s i n e rr or , a s the ye s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i tyf ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l due t o pe r s e c ut i on by the R e vol ut i ona ryA rm e d F or c e s of C ol om bi a ( “ F A R C ”) . T he go vernm entar gu es thatw e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B I A ’ s de c i s i on on the pe t i t i one r s ’ appe a l f r om the I J ’ s or de rbe c aus e the p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s u n t i m e l y . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o rth m o r e f

u l l yb e l o w, we d is m is s th e p e titio n , in p a rt, a n d d e n yth e p e titio n , in p a rt. A s a n in it ial m atter, to th e e x ten t th at th e p etit io n er s c h allen g e th e B IA ’s in itia l o r d e rd is m is s in g th e irap p e a l, w e la c kju r is d ic tio n . W e r e v ie w s u b je c tm a tte rju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . T a n v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 6 9 , 1 3 7 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). In o rd er t o rev i ew a fi n al o rd er o f rem o v al , th e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew m u st be fi l ed no l at erthan 3 0 d ay s a ft erthe dat e of the order. 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (1), ( b) ( 1) , I N A § 242( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) . “ [ T ] he s t a tut oryl i m i tf orf i l i ng ape t i t i on f

or3

r e vi e w i n a n i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ng i s ‘ m a nda t orya nd j ur i s di c t i ona l , ’ [ a nd, the r e f or e , ] i ti s nots ubj e c tt o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. ” D a ka ne v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 399 F . 3d 1269, 1272 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng S t one v. I N S , 514 U . S . 386, 405, 1 1 5 S .C t. 1 5 3 7 , 1 5 4 9 , 1 3 1 L .E d .2 d 4 6 5 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ) . T h e f in a lityo f ar e m o v a l o r d e ris nota f f e c t e d by the f

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 . T h e B IA ’ s A p ri l 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 o rd er, w h i ch affi rm ed th e IJ’ s d eci si o n , w as a f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l . S e e 8 C . F . R . § 1241. 1( a ) . B e c aus e the pe t i t i one r s di d not f ile th e irp e titio n f

o rr e v ie w u n til J u ly7 , 2 0 0 6 , m o r e th a n 3 0 d a y s la te r , th e ir pe t i t i on w a s nott i m e l y a nd, the r e f or e , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of th e BI A ’ s d e c i s i o n a f

f i rmi n g th e I J ’ s d e n i a l o f th e p e t i t i o n e r s ’ r e q u e s tf o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd C A T r e l i e f . S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 1) ; D a ka ne , 399 F . 3d a t1272 n. 3; S t one , 514 U . S . a t405, 115 S . C t . a t1549. H ow e ve r , a s the pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i s t i m e l y a s t o the B I A ’ s de ni a l of r e c ons i de r a t i on, w e ha ve j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew thatorder. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(1); D akane, 39 9 F . 3d at 1 2 7 2 & n .3 . W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f m o tio n s to r e c o n s id e rf o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . A s s a ’ a d v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 332 F . 3d 1321, 1341 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A m ot i on f or r e c ons i de r a t i on “ s ha l l s 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 s h a l l b e s u p p o rt e d b y p e rt i n e n tau th o r i ty . ” 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 6 ) ( C ) , I NA4

§ 2 4 0 ( c ) ( 6 ) ( c ) ; s e e a ls o 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( s a m e ) . “A m o tio n th a t m e r e ly re pu bl 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 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 247, 24 9 (7th C i r. 20 04 ). W hen d enyi ng the m ot i on t o rec on si der, the B IA foun d thati thad c ons i de r e d the a r gum e nt s m a de i n the m ot i on be f or e i tr e nde r e d i t s i ni t i a l de c i s i on a nd de c l i ne d t o r e vi s i tthe m . T he pe t i t i one r s do notc ha l l e nge the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng thati tconsi dere d the ar gu m ent s m ade i n thei r m ot i on w hen i tdeci ded thei r app ea l fr om the IJ ’ s dec i si on . Inst ea d, thei r c l ai m of error i s pre m i se d o n g ener al i ze d a r gum e nt s a s t o the m e r i t s of the i rappl 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 . A r e vi e w of

the pe t i t i one r s ’ not i c e of appe a l , br i e f

t o the B I A , a nd m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on s how s tha tthe pe t i t i one r s ’ ar gum e nt s i n the i rm ot i on f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n w e r e n o t s u b s ta n tiv e lyd if f e r e n t th a n th e irp r e v io u s a r g u m e n ts . In bo th i nst ance s, the pet i t i on er s argued thatthe evi dence dem on stra t ed thatthey had suffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on by the F A R C , had a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on , and cou l d n oti nt ernal l y r el ocat e w i thi n C ol om bi a or r eturn there be c aus e of

athr e a tt o the i rl i ve s . T he onl yl a w c i t e d i n the pe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on f or r e c ons i de r a t i on w a s ourde c i s i on i n A rbol e dav. U . S . A tt orne yG e ne r a l , 434 F . 3d 1 2 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , w h ic h f o rm e d th e b a s is f

o rth e ira r g u m e n t th a t th e yc o u ld noti nt e rna l l y r e l oc a t e . H ow e ve r , i n i t s i ni t i a l de c i s i on, the B I A ha d r e l i e d on5

A rb o le d ato r e

je c t th e I J ’s f

in d in g th a t th e p e titio n e r s c o u ld r e lo c a te in te rn a lly . U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , w e hol d tha tthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the pe t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rbe c aus e the B I A a l r e a dyf ound i n the pet i t i on er s’ fa vo r w i th res pectt o thei r c l ai m of l egal error a s t o the IJ ’ s i nt ernal r e lo c a tio n f

in d in g a n d th e p e titio n e r s o th e rw is e m e r e lyr e a r g u e d th e m e r its o f th e ir al read y-rej ect ed cl ai m s. I n lig h t o f

th e f o r e g o in g , th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w is D I SM I SSED , I N PA R T, A N D D EN I ED , I N PA R T.