### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Se pt e m be r 29, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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. 04- 16630 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 97- 661- 461 Q I N G Y U N Z H E N G , 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

a D 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

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 29, 2005) B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:To the extent Zheng ’s arguments can beconstrued a s challeng ing theBIA’s af firmanc e 1 of the IJ ’s dec ision denying Zheng ’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal under the I NA, and f

or re lief under

the CAT, she failed to file a timely petition for review from that order; thus, we lac k jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 1) (petition for reviewmust be filed within 30 days of the dateof the final order of removal); see also Dakanev. U.S. Attorney General, 399 F .3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (e xplaining that the statutory deadline f

or filing a petition for review in an immigration proce edingis “mandatory and jurisdictional,” a

nd that a filingdeadline is not suspende d or tolled by the fact that a petitioner files a timely motion to reopen the removal proce eding s (quotations and citations omitted)). 2 Q i ng Y un Z he ng, thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ’ s ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n i m m i gr a t i on proceedi ng s f

ol l ow i ng the B IA ’ s a ff

i rm ance of the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng 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 a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) , a nd f orr e l i e f unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on on T 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 ntorP uni s hm e nt (“C A T ”) . Z h en g ar g u es th at th e B IA (1 ) a b u se d it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g Z h en g ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n , a n d ( 2 ) v io la te d Z h e n g ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b y f a ilin g to art i cul at e f

ul l y i t s r ea sons for denyi ng thi s m ot i on . F or the re as on s s etforth m ore 1 f ul l y be l ow , w e de ny i ng Z he ng’ s pe t i t i on. O n D e c e m b e r1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , Z h e n g , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f th e P e o p le ’s R e p u b lic of C hi na (“ P R C ”) , ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es w i tho utpo ss es si ng a val i d ent ry do cum ent . O n D ec em ber 24, 20 03 , the Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on S ervi ce ( “I N S ” ) is s u e d a N o tic e to A p p e a l, c h a r g in g Z h e n g w ith b e in g a n im m ig r a n t n o t in p o s s e s s io n o f

a v a lid e n try d o c u m e n t o rd o c u m e n ts o f id e n tity a n d n a tio n a lity , inOn November 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act of 2 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. This leg islation created a new Depa rtment of Homeland Security , abolished the I NS, and transf

erred its functions to the new department. Be causethis case wa s initi ated while theI NS stil l was in exist ence , this opini on ref ers to the ag ency as the I NS. 3 vi ol a t i on of

I N A § 212( a ) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . D ur i ng a 2 h e a r in g b e f

o r e th e I J , Z h e n g c o n c e d e d r e m o v a b ility a s c h a r g e d . O n A pr i l 7, 2004, Z he ng 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 o v a l u n d e rth e I N A , a n d f o rr e lie f u n d e rth e C A T . Z h e n g a lle g e d in th is appl i c a t i on tha ts he ha d s uf f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on a nd ha d a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f th e f a c t th a t o f

f ic ia ls o f th e P R C h a d f

o r c e d h e rto h a v e tw o a b o r tio n s . O n thi s s am e dat e, Z heng al so appear ed before the IJ for a n evi dent i ary hear i ng on her app l i ca t i on for r el i ef . A tthi s hea ri ng , Z heng as ked t he IJ for a c o n tin u a n c e to g iv e h e rtim e to r e ta in c o u n s e l. T h e I J , h o w e v e r , d e n ie d th is r e que s t , e xpl a i ni ng tha t( 1) Z he ng ha d tw o pr e vi ous a tt or ne y s w ho ha d w i thdr a w n; (2) the IJ had g ra nt ed Z heng a c on t i nu ance i n M ar ch 20 04 ; and (3) the IJ had in f o r m e d Z h e n g in M a r c h 2 0 0 4 , th a t h e w o u ld p r o c e e d in A p r il 2 0 0 4 , e v e n if Z h e n g d id n o t h a v e a n a tto r n e y p r e s e n t. Z he ng the n t e s t i f

i e d a s t o the f

ol l ow i ng f

a c t s . I n S e pt e m be r2002, Z he ng e nt e r e d i nt o a “ C hi ne s e tr a di t i ona l m a r r i a ge ” w i th he rhus ba nd, W u B a o C he n, butWh enth e IJas k edZh en g wh atev i d en ce , i f any , s h e h adt o i ntro d u ce atth e h eari n g, 3 Zhengspecific ally

responde d “[t] he evidence there in, in China.” TheIJthen found that Zheng had been g iven “plenty

of time to try

to get [ the evidenc e],” and heinformed Zhengthat the hearing still would proce ed. 4 s h e d id n o t le g a lly m a r r y h im b e c a u s e h e w a s u n d e rth e a g e r e q u ir e d f o rm a r r ia g e . D ur i ng thi s s a m e t i m e pe r i od, Z he ng be c a m e pr e gna nt , a f t e rw hi c h s he di d not a tte n d h e rr e q u ir e d “f

e m a le e x a m in a tio n ” a n d h id a t h e rm o th e r ’s h o u s e . H o w ev er , aftera n eig h b o r o b se rv ed Z h en g v o m it in g an d re p o rted Z h en g ’s su sp ect ed p reg n an cy, fam i l y-p l an n i n g o ffi ci al s cam e t o Z h en g ’ s m o th er’ s h o u se a n d a s k e d Z h e n g to h a v e a n a b o r tio n . W h e n Z h e n g r e f u s e d to c o n s e n t to th is p ro ced u re, th ese o ffi ci al s arrest ed Z h en g ’ s h u sb an d , d et ai n ed h i m fo r tw o w eek s, a n d to r tu r e d h im . T o e n d th is to r tu r e , Z h e n g c o n s e n te d to th e a b o r tio n . Z he ng f ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha t , a f

t e rs he a ga i n be c a m e pr e gna nti n M a y 2003, s he f a i l e d t o a tt e nd a r e qui r e d “ f e m a l e e xa m i na t i on. ” I n A ugus t2003, a vi l l a ge of f i c i a l a r r i ve d a the rhous e , a r r e s t e d he r , t ook he rt o the hos pi t a l f orthe e xa m i na t i on, a nd f

or c e d he rt o ha ve a n a bor t i on. Z he ng, how e ve r , e s c ape d f r om the ho spi t al before the do ct ors c ou l d i nsertan i ntraut er i ne devi ce (“ IU D ”) . In O c t obe r2003, a f

t e rl e a r ni ng tha tf

a m i l y - pl a nni ng of

f i c i a l s w e r e s e a r c hi ng f

or Z h e n g , h e ru n c le a r r a n g e d f o rh e rto g o to th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d s h e le f t th e P R C . O ther than t hi s t es t i m on y, Z heng st at ed thatshe had no other e vi dence t o p re se ntat thi s a s y l um he a r i ng. 3In Zheng ’sa ff ida vit , s hea ssert e d, amongoth e r t hing s, that ( 1) sh ewa s f

orc e d to 4 underg o two abortions in the PRC; (2) sheleft the PRC to avoid being f orce d to wear

an IUD and beingsubjected to fur ther ha rm; (3) she a

rrived in the United States in December 2003; (4) on her ar

rival, her sponsor helped her to retain an attorney to file an a sylum claim; (5) her fo rm e r t woatto rn e ys w ith dre w a s c ouns e l du eto u nk no wn re a so ns ; ( 6) her f

or mer atto rn e ys did no t in fo rm

her t hat sh ene e de d toob tain c or robo ra tinge vide nc e ; ( 7) sh efoun d it “ very dif fi c ult” to contact persons while in detention; (8) shecould not obtain another attorney before her asylum hearing ; and (9) shebelieved shewas pre judiced by

her lack of c ounsel at this hearing. 5 T h e I J d e n ie d Z h e n g ’s ap p lic a tio n f o rr e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l, b a s e d o n h is d e te r m in a tio n s th a t Z h e n g ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le , a n d th a t s h e h a d f a ile d to offe r a ny other c re di bl e a nd corr ob orat i ng evi dence. Z heng fi l ed a t i m el y app ea l w ith th e B I A , a r g u in g th a t th e I J e r r e d b y ( 1 ) f a ilin g to g r a n t h e ra d d itio n a l tim e to ob t ai n cou nsel , and (2) rel yi ng on m i no r i ncon si st enci es i n fi nd i ng thather t e s t i m ony w a s notc r e di bl e . O n J ul y 28, 2004, the B I A a f f i r m e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on w i tho utop i ni on and ado pt ed i tas the “ fi nal agency det erm i nat i on . ” O n O ct ob er25 , 20 04 , Z heng fi l ed the i nst antm ot i on t o reopen h erre m ov al pr oc e e di ngs . I n s uppor tof thi s m ot i on, Z he ng c l a i m e d tha ts he w i s he d t o pr e s e nt th e fo l l o w i n g “ n ew ev i d en ce”: (1 ) h er C h i n ese R esi d en tID card ; (2 ) h er C h i n ese no t ori al bi rth cer t i fi ca t e; (3) herow n aff i davi t ; (4) a ff

i davi t s s i gn ed by her m other 4 and h usband ; and (5) her husband ’ s C hi nese R es i dentID ca rd. Z heng ar gu ed that thi s “ new evi dence” w as “ previ ou sl y unavai l abl e” because ( 1) she w as det ai ned dur i ng the r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs ; ( 2) he rpr i orc ouns e l f a i l e d t o a dvi s e he ron the ne e d f orc or r obor a t i ve e vi de nc e ; ( 3) s he l a c ke d c ouns e l dur i ng he ra s y l um he a r i ng;Th eB IA in M atter o f Lozada , 1 9 I &N D e c . 6 37 , 6 39 (B IA 1 98 8) , s e t f or th c e rt ain 5 proce dures a

petitioner must follow before filinga motion to reopen ba sed on ineff ective assistanceof counse l. Zheng , however, has a bandoned by

not raisingin her pe tition for review any challeng es to the B IA’s re jection of her motion to reopen ba sed on ineff ective a ssistance of counsel. SeeSepulveda v. U.S. Attorney General, 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). Ind e e d, Zhenge xplic itly

state s o n a

pp e al th at sh e(1 ) h a d n ot attempt e d toraisesu c h a c laim in her m oti on

to re op e n, and

(2 ) h a d n ot f

oll ow e d th eproc e dure s o utl ine d in L ozada . Thu s, wewi ll not include additional facts relating to this finding. 6 a nd ( 4) s he w a s nota w a r e of he rbur de n of

pr oof i n e s t a bl i s hi ng he re l i gi bi l i ty f or a s y lu m r e lie f

. I n N o v e m b e r2 0 0 4 , th e B I A d e n ie d Z h e n g ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n . I n s u p p o r t, the B I A e xpl a i ne d tha t( 1) Z he ng ha d notm e the rbur de n of s how i ng tha tthe addi t i on al evi dence w as previ ou sl y unavai l abl e a nd coul d n othave been prese nt ed a thi s f i r s the a r i ng, a nd ( 2) s he ha d notf ol l ow e d the r e qui r e d pr oc e dur e s f or a s s e r tin g a c la im o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. 5 O n appe a l , Z he ng f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe B I A a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng her m ot i on t o reopen b as ed on i t s f i nd i ng thatshe f

ai l ed t o sho w thatthe “ new e vi de nc e ” tha ts he ha d s oughtt o i ntr oduc e w a s pr e vi ous l y una va i l a bl e . Z he ng spec i fi ca l l y c on t ends that , al tho ug h thi s e vi dence w as “ t ec hn i ca l l y i n exi st ence at the t i m e of

the he a r i ng, ” i tw a s not“ a va i l a bl e ora bl e t o be pr e s e nt e d. ” Z he ng a s s e r t s tha tthe B I A ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha ts he a l s o w a s a tt e m pt i ng t o r a i s e a c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l s how e d tha ti t“ m i ghtnotha ve e ve n unde r s t ood the m ea ni ng and p urpo se ” of herm ot i on t o reopen. Z heng al so ar gu es thatthe B IA7

a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by gi vi ng onl y a “ c onc l us or y ” or“ s um m a r y ” r e a s on f or de ny i ng he rm ot i on. F i na l l y , Z he ng c ont e nds tha tthe B I A di d notgi ve a ny al t ernat i ve re as on s f

or denyi ng her m ot i on t o reopen, and t hatre m and i s nec es sa ry b e c a u s e ( 1 ) h e rt e s t i mo n y w a s c r e d i b l e a n d c o n s i s t e n t , ( 2 ) s h e e s t a b l i s h e d p r i ma f a c i e e l i gi bi l i ty f

ora s y l um , a nd ( 3) the I J ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rr e l i e f f r om r e m o v a l w a s b a s e d p r im a r ily o n th e la c k o f c o r r o b o r a tin g e v id e n c e . W e r evi ew the deni al of a m ot i on t o reopen rem ov al proceedi ng s f or an a bus e of di s c r e t i on. D a ka ne , 399 F . 3d a t1272 n. 2. “ I n thi s pa r t i c ul a ra r e a , the B I A ’ s di s c r e t i on i s qui t e br oa d. ” G ba y a v. U . S . A tt or ne y G e ne r a l , 342 F . 3d 1219, 12 20 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). Judi ci al re vi ew i s l i m i t ed t o d et erm i ni ng “ w hether there has b een an ex erci se o f ad m i n i strat i v e d i scret i o n an d w h eth er th e m att er o f ex erci se h a s b e e n a rb itr a r y o rc ap r ic io u s .” G a r c ia - M irv . S m ith , 7 6 6 F .2 d 1 4 7 8 , 1 4 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . A ta m i ni m um , three i nd ependentgrou nd s e xi stup on w hi ch the B IA m ay re l y i n d enyi ng a m ot i on t o reopen: “ (1) f ai l ure t o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e; ( 2) f a i l ur e t o i ntr oduc e e vi de nc e tha tw a s m a t e r i a l a nd pr e vi ous l y una va i l a bl e ; a nd ( 3) a de t e r m i na t i on tha tde s pi t e the a l i e n’ s s t a tut or y e l i gi bi l i ty f orr e l i e f , he ors he i s note nt i t l e d t o a f

a vor a bl e e xe r c i s e of

di s c r e t i on. ” A l N a

jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1302 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . R e phr a s i ng thi s s e c ond gr ound, the r e gul a t i onsThe SupremeCourt has analogized the burden on an a pplicant seeking to reopen 6 immigration procee dings ba sed on new ly discovere d evidenc e to that imposed on a c riminal defendant seeking a

new trial based on such evidence , and it has empha siz ed that the moving party bear s a “he avy

burden.”See I

NS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110, 108 S.C t. 904, 914, 99 L .Ed.2d 90 (1988). 8 prov i de thata m ot i on t o reopen p roce edi ng s “ shal l no tbe grant ed un l es s i tappears to th e [ B I A ] th a t e v id e n c e s o u g h t to b e o f f e r e d is m a te r ia l a n d w a s n o t a v a ilab le a n d c o u l d n o th a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d o rp r e s e n t e d a tth e f o r me rh e a r i n g . ” 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(1 ). M o reo v er, i n ex p l ai n i n g § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(1 ), w e h av e st at ed as fo l l o w s: [ t]h e p r o v is io n is f

r a m e d n e g a tiv e ly , b y d ir e c tin g th e B o a r d n o t to r e o p e n u n le s s c e r ta in s h o w in g s a r e m a d e . I t d o e s n o t a f f ir m a tiv e ly re qu i re the [B IA ] t o reopen the proceedi ng s und erany par t i cul ar c ondi t i on. T hus , the r e gul a t i ons m a y be c ons true d t o pr ovi de the [B IA ] w i th d i sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng un der w hatci rc um st ance s pr oc e e di ngs s houl d be r e ope ne d. A l N ajj ar , 25 7 F . 3d at13 01 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s a nd m arks om i tt ed). 6 H er e, the B IA det erm i ned t hatthe “ new evi dence” on w hi ch Z heng w as re l yi ng i n h erm ot i on t o reopen, thati s ( 1) her C hi nese R es i dentID ca rd; (2) her C hi nese no t ori al bi rth cer t i fi ca t e; (3) herow n aff i davi t ; (4) a ff

i davi t s s i gn ed by her m othe ra nd hus ba nd; a nd ( 5) he rhus ba nd’ s C hi ne s e R e s i de ntI D c a r d, c oul d ha ve b een p resen t ed ath er asyl u m h eari n g i n A p ri l 2 0 0 4 . In d eed , Z h en g ’ s C h i n ese R e s id e n t I D c a r d w a s is s u e d in 2 0 0 2 , a n d h e rn o to r ia l b ir th c e r tif ic a te w a s is s u e d in J a nua r y 2004. A l though Z he ng’ s hus ba nd’ s C hi ne s e R e s i de ntI D c a r d w a s not i s s ue d unt i l M a y 2004, Z he ng f a i l e d t o e xpl a i n w hy he rhus ba nd c oul d notha ve9

ap p lie d f o rits is s u a n c e b e f

o r e th a t h e a r in g d a te . S im ila r ly , a lth o u g h th e a f f id a v its si gn ed by Z heng , Z heng ’ s m other, and h erhu sband w er e noti n exi st ence before A p ril 2 0 0 4 , th ey in v o lv ed attestatio n s th at eith erw er e u n re lated to Z h en g ’s ap p lic a tio n f

o rr e lie f f r o m r e m o v a l, o rw e r e k n o w n b y th e a f f ia n ts b e f o r e th e d a te o f th e a s y lu m h e a r in g . T o the ext entZ heng ar gu ed i n h erm ot i on t o reopen t hatthi s e vi dence, ne ve r the l e s s , w a s “ una va i l a bl e ” be c a us e of ( 1) he rde t e nt i on, ( 2) he rpr i or c ouns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e t o a dvi s e he ron he rbur de n of pr oof , a nd ( 3) he row n l a c k of k n o w l ed g e o n th i s b u rd en , sh e h as fai l ed t o ci t e t o au th o ri ty t o su p p o rtan y o f th ese a r gum e nt s . R e ga r dl e s s , a l though Z he ng w a s de t a i ne d pe ndi ng he rA pr i l 2004 a s y l um he a r i ng, a nd a l though the I J de ni e d he rm ot i on t o c ont i nue thi s he a r i ng, the IJ had con t i nu ed the heari ng i n M ar ch 20 04 , atw hi ch t i m e he a l so had i nform ed Z h e n g th a t s h e w o u ld n o t b e g r a n te d a n y a d d itio n a l c o n tin u a n c e s . Z h e n g o n ly a r g u e d in s u p p o r t o f

h e rA p r il c o n tin u a n c e m o tio n th a t s h e w a s s e e k in g to o b ta in coun se l . M oreover, Z heng fa i l ed t o exp l ai n w hy her s po nsor— the pers on w ho had he l pe d Z he ng obt a i n c ouns e l i ni t i a l l y— c oul d nota l s o ha ve he l pe d he robt a i n the s u p p o r tin g d o c u m e n ta tio n a t is s u e . T o th e e x te n t Z h e n g a ls o is a r g u in g th a t th is e v id e n c e w a s “p r e v io u s ly un avai l abl e” because herpri or coun se l m i sa dv i se d h er , Z heng has c on ce ded t hat10

s h e f a ile d to p r o p e r ly p r e s e r v e a c la im o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l b y n o t f o llo w in g th e p r o c e d u r e s o u tlin e d in L o z a d a . S e e L o z a d a , 1 9 I & N a t 6 3 9 . F i na l l y , a l though Z he ng i s c ont e ndi ng tha ts he w a s nota w a r e of he rbur de n of p r o o f , th is a s s e r tio n n e ith e re x p la in s w h y th is in f o r m a tio n w a s “p r e v io u s ly una va i l a bl e , ” nordoe s i tc ha nge the f a c ttha tthe appl i c a ntc a r r i e s the bur de n of p r o v in g e lig ib ility f

o ra s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, a n d r e lie f

u n d e rth e C A T . S e e 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) ( a s y l um ) ; 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16 ( w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l a nd r e l i e f unde rthe C A T ) . T hus , Z he ng f a i l e d t o s how tha tthi s e vi de nc e w a s “ not avai l abl e a nd coul d n othave been di sc ov er ed or pres ent ed” a tthe t i m e of her a s y l u m h e a r i n g . Se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 . 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; s e e a l s o I N S v . D o h e r ty , 5 0 2 U . S. 314, 323, 112 S . C t . 719, 724- 25, 116 L . E d. 2d 823 ( 1992) ( di s c us s i ng tha tm ot i ons t o reopen are di sf

avored, es peci al l y i n rem ov al proceedi ng s, because, as a genera l m att er , “ every del ay w orks t o the advant age of the [r em ov abl e] al i en w ho w i shes m erel y t o rem ai n i n th e U n i t ed S t at es”). W e co n cl u d e th atth e B IA d i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g Z h en g ’ s m o t i o n t o reo p en th e rem o v al p ro ceed i n g s. Z h e n g a ls o a r g u e s in h e rp e titio n th a t, w h e th e ro rn o t th e B I A a b u s e d its di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n, i tvi ol a t e d he rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s by f a ilin g to a r tic u la te f

u lly its r e a s o n s f

o rd e n y in g th is m o tio n . Z h e n g a s s e r ts in s u p p o r to f

th i s a r g u m e n tth a tth e B I A’ s s u m m a ry f i n d i n g th a ts h e h a d n o ts h o wnPursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i), a singleBIA member

shall aff irm an IJ ’s 7 de c isi on , w ith out an opinion , if : the B oard Member de termines that the result reached in the de cision under review was c orre ct; that any

errors in the dec ision under review were ha rmless or no nmateri al; a

nd that (A) The issues on appe al are squarely controlled by

exis ting B oard or

federal court pre cedent and do not involve the application of prec edent to a nove l fac tual situation; or (B ) The f actual and leg al issues raise d on appeal arenot so substantial that the casewar rants issuanceof a written opinion in the case. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (4)( i). In reachingit determination in L onyem, this Court cited to the Supreme Court’s 8 de c isi on in V e rm ont Nuc le ar P ow e r C or p. v. Natural Re so urc e s D e fens eCounc il, Inc ., 43 5 U .S. 519, 543, 98 S.Ct . 1197, 1211, 55 L .Ed.2d 460 (1978), that “administrative ag encie s should be 11 th a t th e “n e w e v id e n c e ” w a s p r e v io u s ly u n a v a ilab le ( 1 ) d o e s n o t r e f le c t w h y it r e a c he d thi s de t e r m i na t i on, a nd ( 2) “ f or c e s [ us ] t o gue s s a s t o the the or y unde r l y i ng th e [ B I A ’s ] d e c is io n in v io la tio n o f Z h e n g ’s p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts .” W e r evi ew const i tut i on al chal l enges de nov o. L on ye m v. U . S . A tt orney G en eral , 3 5 2 F . 3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). “ T o est ab l i sh d u e p ro cess vi ol a t i ons i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs , a l i e ns m us ts how tha tthe y w e r e de pr i ve d of l i berty w i tho utdu e proces s of l aw , and t hatthe as se rt ed errors caused them s u b s ta n tia l p r e

ju d ic e .” I d . a t 1 3 4 1 - 4 2 . I n r e v ie w in g a d u e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e in a n a n a lo g o u s ap p e a l w h e r e a s in g le m e m be rof

the B I A a f

f i r m e d a n I J ’ s de c i s i on w i thouta n opi ni on, pur s ua ntt o 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 1(e) (4)( i ), w e det erm i ned i n L on ye m thatan al i en i s notent i t l ed per 7 s e to a f u ll o p in io n b y th e B I A . I d . W e e x p la in e d th a t, “[ t]h e f a c t th a t a s in g le 8fre e to fa shion their own rules of proce dure a

nd to pursue methods of inquiry capa ble of permitting them to discharg e their multitudinous duti es.” SeeL onyem, 352 F.3d a t 1342. 12 B I A m e m be ri s s ue d a n a f f i r m a nc e w i thoutopi ni on [ di d] notde m ons tr a t e tha the di d n otre vi ew the fa ct s of [ the pet i t i on er ’ s] ca se . Id. W e f urther det erm i ned t hat the pe t i t i one rf

a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e s how i ng tha t : ( 1) the B I A m e m be rw ho re vi ew ed the ca se devi at ed fr om the re gu l at i on ’ s r equi re m ent s w hen h e det erm i ned thatthe ca se w arra nt ed a s um m ary a ff i rm ance , or (2) the pet i t i on erw as s u b s ta n tia lly p r e

ju d ic e d b y th e B I A ’s is s u a n c e o f a n a f f ir m a n c e w ith o u t o p in io n . I d. W e , the r e f

or e , c onc l ude d tha tthe pe t i t i one r ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m s w e r e w i thout m e r i t . I d. S i m i l art o the fa ct s i n L on ye m , Z heng has notci t ed t o evi dence i n the re cord s h o w in g th a t th e B I A , in d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n , f a ile d to f o llo w its r e gul a t i ons . M or e ove r , a s di s c us s e d a bove , the B I A r e a s ona bl y c oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha ti tw a s c l e a rf r om the f a c e of the “ ne w e vi de nc e ” on w hi c h Z he ng w a s r e l y i n g th a tth i s e v i d e n c e w a s n o t“ p r e v i o u s l y u n a v a i l a b l e . ” Se e 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 1 ) . Z h e n g a ls o h a s f a ile d to e x p la in h o w s h e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly prej ud i ce d b y the B IA ’ s f ai l ure t o m ore f

ul l y a rt i cul at e w hy i tw as denyi ng her m o tio n to r e o p e n . S e e L o n y e m , 3 5 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 2 . M oreover, w e have concl ud ed thatthe fa i l ure t o rec ei ve di sc re t i on ary r el i ef doe s nota m ountt o a de pr i va t i on of a l i be r ty i nt e r e s t . S e e M e j i a - R odr i gue z v.Unlike asylum relief, whic h is discretionary, withholding of removal and relief under 9 the CAT, where wa

rra nted, is mandatory . See Antipova v. U.S. Attorney General, 392 F .3d 12 59 , 1 26 5 n .2 (1 1th

Cir . 2 00 4) (w ithho ldingof remov al un der t

heI NA); se ealso8 C. F .R. § 208.16(d)( 1) (manda

tory languag e in re gulation governingwithholding of removal under the I NA and relief under the CAT). 13 R e no, 178 F . 3d 1139, 1146- 48 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e l i gi bi l i ty f ors us pe ns i on of de por t a t i on) ; s e e a l s o T e l f e l v. R e no, 180 F . 3d 1286, 1300 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ e xpe c t a t i on doe s note qua t e w i th l i be r ty orpr ope r ty , a nd a c ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d i nt e r e s tc a nnota r i s e f r om r e l i e f

tha tthe e xe c ut i ve ex er cise s u n fe tt er ed d iscr etio n to aw ar d ”) . A s d iscu ss ed ab o v e, th e B IA ’s di sc re t i on i n g ra nt i ng a m ot i on t o reopen i s “ qu i t e broad. ” S ee G baya , 34 2 F . 3d at 12 20 . W e a l so have det erm i ned t hatthe deci si on w hether t o g ra ntas yl um — re l i ef Z h e n g w a s s e e k in g a s p a r t o f h e rr e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s — is a m a tte ro f d is c r e tio n . S ee S ep u l v ed a, 4 0 1 F . 3 d at1 2 3 1 . T h u s, atl eastt o th e ex t en tZ h en g ’ s d u e p ro cess 9 cl ai m w as base d o n h erdesi re t o reopen h erproceedi ng s a nd t o see k asy l um re l i ef , thi s c l ai m al so i s w i tho utm er i tbecause s he fa i l ed t o est abl i sh a depri vat i on of a lib e r ty in te r e s t. A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B I A , in d e n y in g Z h e n g ’s m o tio n to re op en, nei ther abu se d i t s di sc re t i on , no r vi ol at ed Z heng ’ s due proces s r i gh t s. W e, th e r e f o r e , d e n y Z h e n g ’s p e titio n . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.