FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Aug ust19 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1633 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ A ge nc y N o. A 79- 349- 805 SANDRA MILENA GARZON, Petitioner, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Petition for Reviewfrom a Final O rder of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 19 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , D U BIN Aand C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Sandr a Mi le naG arzo n, ac iti ze n of Co lom bia , pe tit ion s th ro ugh co unse l f or re vie wof the or de r of

the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s de ny ing he r m oti on t o re co nsi de r its e ar lie r de ci sio n. I n it s pr ev iou s or de r, the BI Aha d a ff irm ed the im m igr at ionj udge ’ s de nia l of he r ap pli catio n f

or a sy lum and w ith hol din g of re m ova l un de r the I m

m igr at ionand N at

ur al iz at ionA ct

and f or r el ie f unde r the U nit ed 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 , and De grading Treatm ent or Punishm ent (CA T) . W e re vie wthe BI A ’ s de nia l of am oti on t o r ec onsi de r fo r ab use of discretion. A ssa’ ad v. U .S . A ttorney Ge n., 332 F.3d 1321 , 1341 (11th Cir. 2003); se e al so 8 C. F. R. § 10 03. 2( a) ( “ T he de ci sio n to gr an t or de ny am oti on t o reconsider is within the discretion of the [BIA ] . . . .” ). Am otion to reconsider m ust se t f orth e ith er

an e rr or of lawor an e rr or of f ac t i n th e pr ior

BI Ade ci sio n, an dm u s tb e s up p o rt ed b y p er t i n en tau t h o ri t y. 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (b )( 1 ). Ga rz o n ’s m ot io n t o re co ns id er fa il edto set for th an y erro r in th e BIA’s p rev io us ord er. In ste ad , it sim ply r es ta te d he r ar gum en t tha t he r m oth er ha d be engr an te d a sy lum based on th e sam e fa cts she alleged, an argum ent that both the BIAand the IJ had pr ev iou sly

c onsi de re d and r ej ec te d. T he re fo re , the BI Adid not abuse it s discretion bydeny ing Garz on’s m otion to reconsider.3

Inhe r br ie f, G arzo n a lso c ha lle nge s th e BI A ’ s f ir st o rd er , in w hic h it affir m ed the denial of her cla im s for asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval, and relief un de r CAT. W e d o n ot co ns id er t hi s ch al le ng e b ecau se itis no t p ro pe rly befo re u s. Garzon did no t file a tim ely petition for r eview of

the BIA ’ s final order of r em oval or it s r ej ec tio n of

he r ad dit ion al e vid en ce . Ape tit ionf or r ev ie wm

ust be f ile d no later than thirty

day s after

the date of the final order of rem oval. 8 U .S .C. § 12 52( b) (1 ). H er e, the BI A ’ s f ir st o rd er w as e nte re d onAugus t 31 , 200 4, and Garzon’ s petition for r eview w as not filed unti l De cem ber 6, 2004 , m ore than three m onths l at er . I t m ak es no d if fe re nc e that G arzo n f

ile d am oti on f

or reconsideration. T hat does no t toll the tim e for se eking judicial reviewof the final or de r of r em ova l. A hm ed

v. A shc ro ft , 388 F . 3d 2 47, 248 ( 7thCi r. 200 4) ; se e al so Stone v. IN S, 514 U.S . 386, 115 S. Ct. 1537 (1995). PETITION DENIED.