T h e H on . T h omas W

. Phi l l i ps , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e Eas t er n D i s t r i ct of T en n es s ee , s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n.

B eda l l i ’ s w i f

e L j u b i c a a n d c h i l d r e n J u l j a n a n d A n a a r e i n c l u d e d a s p e t i t i o n e r s . Th e y a r e d e p e n d e n t on 1 E dm ond, howev er , an d f or s i mp l i ci t y ’ s s ake , r ef er enc es i n t he r ecor d and he r ei n a r e s ol el y t o E dm ond and t he s i ng ul ar “p e tit io n e r.” NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0475n.06 No. 08-3702 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT EDMOND B EDAL L I , LJ U B IC A B E D A LLI, J UL J AN B EDAL L I , and A N A B E D A LLI, Pe tit ion e rs , v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETI TI ON F OR REV I E W OF T HE B O A R D O F IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS OPI NI ON

Before: M OORE an d GILMAN, C ircuit Judges; and PHILLIPS, Distric t Judge. * THOMAS W. PHILLIPS, Distr ict Judge. Petitioner Edmond Be dalli, a native Alba nian and citizen of Monteneg ro, seeks r eview of the orde r of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) 1 deny ing his motion to reopen a sy lum procee dings a nd additionally

alludes to revie w of the de nial of his motion to reconsider the asylum procee d i n gs . P etitioner initially applied for

asylum and alternatively

for withholdi ng of removal, which the immigration judge below denied and the B oard of I mmigration Appe als (“B I A”) aff irmed without opinion. Over four y ear s later, petitioner moved-2-

to reope n these procee dings, which motion the BI A denied as unt imely on May 7, 2008. Petitioner separ ately filed a motion to rec onsider on June 3, 2008, which the B I A denied on January 15, 2009. For the re asons set for

th below, we DENY the petition for re view.

I. BACKG ROUND Petitioner and h i s family are ethnic Albania

ns who forme rly

lived in Monteneg ro, of the former Yug oslavia. Petitioner alleg es that he and his e x tended family have suf fer ed a “ long history of per secution a t the hands of the communists and subsequent socialist g overnme nts” bec ause of the ir a c tiv ity in a nti -c omm un ist Al ba nia n po lit ic s. Af

te r mov ing to Mo nte ne g ro in t he e arl y 19 90 s, petitioner wa s place d in the m ilitary rese rves. On or about M ay 4, 1999, he re ceive d a dra ft notice calling him to active duty , which petitioner ig nored

. Ac cordingly , on or about May 22, 1999, the

m i l i t ar y p o l i c e ar

r i v e d a th i s h o u s e t o ar

r e s th i m . A l t h o u g h p e t i t i o n e r i n i t i a l l y c o mp l i e d v o l u n t ar i l y, he later esca ped custody and went into hiding. After flee ing to I taly , petitioner entered the U nited States via Philadelphia in Aug ust 1999. On Marc h 3, 2000, petitioner appl i ed fo r asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under the I mmi g ratio n a

nd Natur a lizatio n A c t, and pr ote c tio n un de r the Un ite d N a tio ns Con ve nti on Ag a ins t Torture and Other

For ms of Cruel, I nhuman or D egr ad ing T reatment or Punishment. P etitioner claimed he would be incar cer ated f or eva ding military

service and per secute d as an e thnic Albanian

wer e he de nied asylum and remove d from the United States. His family having enter ed the United States in M ar c h 2 0 0 0 , a ll f o u r f a mi ly me mb e r s w e r e s e r

v e d w it h a N o ti c e to A p p e ar o n o r about J anuar y 31, 2001.-3-

The immigr ation judge (“I J ”) de nied petitioner’s a pplication. First, the I J held that petitioner had not me t the standards for g ranting asylum, for which the a pplicant bea

rs the burde ns of proof a

nd persua sion under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (B ). Asylum may be gra nted i f the a

pplicant is determined to be a r efug ee. Id. § 1158(b)( 1)(A) . The I J found that petitioner f ailed to meet this definition, having shown neither pa st persec ution or a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cu t i o n , 8 C .F.R. § 208.13(b), a s Slobodan Milos evic had fallen f rom power , there was g ener al amnesty for military service evade rs in both Serbia and Montene g ro, and in a ny event it was rea s o n able to ex pect petitioner to retur

n to his house in Monte neg ro, whe re he would be saf e. F urthermor e, petitioner ha d not established that there was a pattern or

prac tice of pe rsec uting Alba nians i n M o n t en egro. F or these same rea sons, the I J also denied petitioner’s a pplication for withholding of re moval under the I mmigrat i o n an d Natura liz ation Act. See id. § 208.16(b) ( standards f or withholding of

remova l). Th e I J like wi se de nie d p e tit ion e r’ s app lic a tio n f or pr ote c tio n und e r t

he UNCon ve nti on

Ag a ins t Torture and Other For

ms of Cruel, Inhuman or De g radingTreatment or Punishment, as petitioner ha d not sho wn any e vid e nc e of pa st tor tur e or of g ro ss, fl a g ra

nt, or ma ss v iol a tio ns of

human r ig hts and, in any

event, ther e wa s evidenc e that petitioner c ould relocate elsew here and avoid suc h pe rs e c uti on . F ina lly , th e I J den ied pet it io ner ’s a pp lic a tio n f

or vo lun tary

de pa rt ur e (a pp lic a ble to Edmond only , as the rema ining family members wer e not statutorily elig ible for voluntar

y depar ture)

an d o r d e r e d t h e r e m o v a l o f

p e t i t i o n e r a n d h i s f

a m i l y m e mb e r s . O nO c t o b e r

2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e B IA aff irmed this decision without opinion, and on Fe bruar y 8, 2005, this court denied Be dalli’s petition for r eview. Bedalli v. Gonzales , No. 03-4524. On Fe bruar

y 22, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to reopen wit h the BI A. Although motions to reope n must ge nera lly

be filed w ithin ninety

day s of the date on which the fi n al administrative-4-

decision wa s rende red, this time limit ation does not apply , inter alia, “t o a mot ion to reopen proce eding s ... [t ]o apply or re apply

for a sy lum or withholding of de portation based on c hang ed circ umstances arising in the country of nationalit y or i n the country to which depor tation has bee n order ed, if such evidence is materia l and was not available and could not have been disc overe d or prese nted at the pr evious hea ring .” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c )(3) (ii). Petitioner argued that cir cumstance s chang ed in M onteneg ro following i ts declar ation of indepe ndence from the c ountry then known as Serbia a nd Monteneg ro, t he former Yugoslavia , in 2006, and Kosovo’s decla ration of indepe ndence fr om S e rb ia

in 2 00 8. I n su

pp or t of his mot ion , pe tit ion e r fi le d, a mon g oth e r thi ng s, a 19 95 Re sp on se to I nformation Reque st by the I NS Re source I nformation Center in Washing ton, D.C., contending th a t e thn ic A lb an ia

n s w e r e a t r is k

if c o n s c r ip te d

in to th e Se r

b ia nar my o r if th e y a v o id ed

c on sc ri pti on . Pe tit ion e r f ur the r a rgue d th a t th e Mo nte ne g ri n g ov e rnme nt w a s p e rs e c uti nge thn ic Albanians, thre e of w hom are natura liz ed U.S. c itiz ens, by falsely arr esting them as terr orists so that it c ou ld su

bje c t the m to de te nti on and tor tur e . F ina lly , pe tit ion e r c ite d the de mon str a tio ns and ri ots agai n s t Albanians a

nd the United States following Kosovo’s dec laration of independe nce on Fe bruar y 17, 2008 and the United S tates’s support there of as e vidence that he would be pe rsec uted upon his return. On May 7, 2008, the BIA denied the motion to reope n as untimely . I t found that petitioner

and his fa mil y ha d “ fa ile d t o dem on str a te ho w t he se c ir c ums tanc e s w ou ld o bje c tiv e ly a ff e c t th e ir claim of pe rsec ution or torture.” Be cau s e p etitioner had not a dequate ly shown how the

c ir c ums tanc e s c ite d w ou ld a ff e c t hi m, t he B I A fo un d that the e vid e nc e wa s “ ina de qu a te ly mate ri a l” and therefor e petiti oner was not subject t o the ex ception to the ni nety -day deadline. Petitioner then filed a motion to rec onsider on June 3, 2008, which was de nied on J anuar y 15, 2009.-5-

T h e p e t i t i o nf

o r r e v i e w , f i l e d o n J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 8 , c i t e s o n l y t h e M ay 7 , 2 0 0 8 d e c i s i o n o f t h e B IA de nyin g B e d a ll i’ s mo ti o nto r e o p e n . Pe ti ti o n e r n o w ar g u e s , a lb e it

in c u r s o r y r e f e r e n c e s w ithout elabor ation, that the motion to rec onsider should have been g rante d. The Attorne y Gene ral (“ AG”) opposes the petition, arguing that petitioner has not shown cha ng ed cir cumstance s; that even if he had, they are not material; and that petitioner has fa iled to meet his burden of showing that the information was not pre viously available , particula rly with reg ard to the 1995 r eport. The AG fu rt he r a rgue s tha t the B I A’ s den ia l of pe tit ion e r’ s motio n to re c on sid e r i s n ot p ro pe rl y be fo re thi s court for revie w.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of review “The denial of a

motion to reopen or rec onsider a remova l order is revie wed for an abuse of discretion.” Huang v. M

ukasey , 5 2 3 F. 3 d 6 4 0 , 6 5 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g De nk o v . I NS , 351 F.3d 717, 723 (6th Cir. 2003) ). “This Court will find an abuse of discretion if the de nial of the motion to reope n [or reconsider ] ‘was made w ithout a rational explanat i o n , i n ex plicably depar ted from

e sta bli sh e d p oli c ie s, or re ste d on an imp e rm iss ibl e ba sis su c h as inv idi ou s d isc ri min a tio n a g a ins t a particula r race o r gro u p . ’ ” BiFe ng Liu v. Holder , 560 F.3d 485, 490 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Allabani v. Gonzales , 402 F.3d 668, 675 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). B. Motion to Re open A motion to reopen must g ener ally be filed within ninety day s afte r t he issuance of the fina l administrative dec ision. 8 U.S.C . § 1229a(c )(7) (C)(i); 8 C.F.R § 1003

. 2 (c) (2). The re a re f ew exceptions to thi s deadline; a ppl i ca b l e t o the instant case is an exception for a rea pplication “for-6-

asylum or withholding of de portation based on c hang ed cir cumstance s arising in the coun try of nationality

or in the country to which deportation has been order ed, if such e vidence is material and was not ava ilable and c ould not have bee n discovere d or pre sented at the pre v i o u s hear ing.” 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3. 2( c )( 3) (i i) ; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c) (7)( C)(ii). “In order to justi fy the re opening of proce eding s based on chang ed country conditions, the movant ‘ca nnot r ely on s p ec u l ati ve

c on c lus ion s o r m e re a sse rt ion s o f f e ar o f p os sib le pe rs e c uti on , b ut i ns te a d mu st o ff e r r e a so na

bly specific information showing a re al threat of individual persec ution.’ ” Al Roumy v . Mukase y , 290 F. Ap p ’x 8 5 6 , 8 5 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Ha rc he nk o v . I NS , 379 F.3d 405, 410 ( 6th Cir. 2004)). I n support of his motion to reopen , petitioner submitted a 1995 re port reg ardingthe risks ethnic Albania

ns fac e if conscripted int o the army or i f t hey avoid beingconscr ipted; a 2007 re port from the Of

fice of the Coordinator f

or Counterter

rorism of the U.S. Embassy reg ardingterro r ism a

nd counter terror ism in Monteneg ro and spe cifica lly discussing the September 9, 2007 a rre st of fourtee n

e thn ic Al ba

nia ns ; an A mne sty

I nte rn a tio na l re po rt

on Mo nte ne g ro , li ke wi se dis c us sin g the e ve nts of September

9, 2007; a re port from the A lbanian Americ an Civic L eague entitled, “T he Albania n Am e ri c an C iv ic Co nd e mns the I lle g a l A rr e st a nd To rt ur e of 14 Al ba nia ns , T hr e e of

Th e m U .S. Citi zen s, in M on te ne g ro : Calls on the U.S. Gov ernme nt to Prevent a Cove r-Up ”; an a rticle fr om the De tr oit F re e Pr e ss re po rt ing on tw o of the thr e e U. S. c iti zen s arr e ste d, wh o we re Mic hig an r e sid e nts ;

a new s article by the Oakland Press about the third U.S. c itiz en ar rested a nd his family ’s strug g le for his relea se; and the affidavit of P renik Camaj, a family friend a nd expert on the forme r Yug oslavia. The B I A found thes e subm issions were insuff iciently materia l to petitioner’s claim and denied pe titioner’s motion on that basis, not specifically addre ssing whe ther pe titioner had de mon str a te d th a t c ir c ums tanc e s h a d c ha ng e d. Th e B I A h e ld:-7-

The re spondents now submit evidence that various United St ates c itiz ens have been arr e ste d a s te rr or ist s in Mo nte ne g ro . Ho we ve r, the re sp on de nts have fa ile d to demonstrate how

these c ircumstan ce s would objectively aff ect their claim of perse cution or t orture. Whil e the g overnme nt of Mont eneg ro m ight be awa re of the responde nts’ ret u rn t o the country , we do not find that the r espondents have demonstrated that such con d i t i o n s have r easona bly cre ated a likelihood that they would be per secute d or torture d, and we , there fore , find that the evidenc e submitted in t he re sp on de nts ’ m oti on

is i na de qu a te ly

ma te ri a l to the ir

c la im. As an initial matter , the first exhibi t, a 1995 repor t reg ardingthe risks ethnic Alba nians fac e if they , like petitioner, avoid conscr iption in t he ar my , was c lear ly

available at the time of pe titioner’s underlying a

pplication for a sy lum and withholding of r emoval and is ther efo re n o t co nsidered a s evidenc e of c hang ed cir cumstance s. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (3)( ii) (ninety -day time limi tation does

no t a pp ly if e vid e nc e of

c ha ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s is bo th m a te ri a l and “ wa s n ot a

va ila ble and c ou ld

no t have be e n dis c ov e re d or pr e se nte d a t the pr e vio us he ari ng ” ). Whil e the B I A d id n ot s pe c if ic a lly exclude this evidence , neither did the B I A explicitl y ref ere nce it in its opinion. The opinion ins tead fo c us e s o n th e mate ri a lity

of e vid e nc e of

the Se pte mbe r 9 , 2 00 7 a

rr e sts of fo ur te e n e thn ic Al ba

nia ns , which primar ily

comprises the r emainder

of petitioner’ s submissi ons. This c ourt will likewise focus its analy sis on the remaining evidenc e, with the spec ific finding that the 1995 re port should not be considere d. Wit h reg ard to whe ther the B I A abuse d its discretion in fi n d i n g t hat the re mainder of the evidenc e wa s not ma t er i al , t h e ca se of Kalaj v. Mukasey , 276 F. App’ x 465 (6th Cir. 2008) (pe r curiam), is particular ly

instructive. The K alajs we re native Albanians s e e k in g a s y lum or withholding of re moval. I n aff

irming the order

of the B I A deny

ing the Kalajs’ motion to reope n, we f ound: The Ka lajs’ proff

ere d “evide nce” falls woef ully short of this standa

rd. I t consists of a ra ndom collection of Interne t articles pr incipally descr ibing on- g oing political tension betwee n the ruling Democr ats and the opposition Socialists in Albania, a long wi th two c ountr

y re po rt s (on e fr om the U. S. Sta te De pa rtme nt an d a sec on d f

ro m a-8-

now-de f u n c t h u ma nr ig h ts o r g an iz a ti o n ) d e s c r ib in g b o th p o s it iv e an d

n e g a ti ve developments in Albania ’s re cent human r i gh t s rec ord. Ther e is nothing e ven remotely individualiz ed in these doc uments, and we will not find that the B I A abuse d its discretion in refusingto reope n a ca se whe n prese nted with such equivoc al and anec dotal evidenc e of c hang ed countr y co nditions. W e have repe atedly reje cted s i m ilar attempts by

Albanian pe titioners to reopen the ir asylum cases ba sed on larg ely unsubstantiated alleg ations of worse ning c onditions i n their country

. Id. at 467. Simi larly , in Grishaj v. Gonzales , petitioner wa s an ethnic A lbanian fr om Kosovo. Grishaj v. Gonzales , 192 F. App’ x 493, 494 (6th Cir. 2006). The court, inter a lia, upheld the B I A’s denia l of his motion to reope n, which he had supported with an updated repor t on the status of political and human rig hts conditions in Kosovo , b ecause the submitted documents “ did not offer materia l evidenc e suff

icient to chang e the or igina l finding that Grishaj has no we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution.” Id. at 498. L ik e w is e, in Krcic v. Gonzale s, p et i t i o n er s , et h n i c A l b an i an s an d ci t i z en s o f Mont eneg

ro, had moved t o reope n their proceeding s based in part on worsening conditions in S erbia and Montene g ro. Krcic. v. Gonzale

s , 186 F. App’ x 541, 541 (6th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Petitioners substantiated their mot i o n to reope n “princ ipally [wit h] articles and pre ss relea ses desc ribing the 2003 assassination of Prime Minister Zor an Dj indjic, which led to a 42 da y state of e merg ency .” Id. at 542. We upheld the B I A’s denia l of the motion to reope n, finding that “ther e [was] nothi ng in the

rec ord to c onnect that assassination to the Krc ics or to r ebut the finding of the B oard that ... ‘[t] he Report does not indicate widespre ad ac tions a g a in s t ethnic Albanians in Montene g ro.’” Id . at 542-43 (quoting BIA opinion be low). Acc ording ly , we did not find that the B I A had a bused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Id. at 543.T h e Amne s t y I n t er n at i on al r epor t s u bmi t t ed by pe t i t i on er s t at es t h at s ev en t ee n i n di v i du al s w er e ar r es t ed. 2 -9- Th e se ca ses dem on str a te a g e ne ra l patte rn

of up ho ldi ngthe B I A’ s d e nia l of a mot ion to reope n wher e the pe titioner had s u b s ta nti a te d the untimely

motion with gene ralized news a rticles and repor ts. I n the i nstant case , the evidenc e submitted by petitioners is of a substantially simil ar nature, consisting pr imarily

of new s articles a

nd other a ccounts of the September 9, 2007 arr est of four teen 2 ethnic Albania

ns, three of

whom are U.S. citiz ens, for alleg ed ter

rorist ac tiviti es i n Monteneg ro. Petitioner has ar g ued that the c ited g rounds of ter rorism for this a

rre st w as mere ly

a pre tense to allow fo r t he pe rs e c uti on

and tor tur e of the se e thn ic Al ba

nia ns . He the n e xtra

po late s f ro m th is a pp are ntl y isolated incident, ar g uing that i t d em o n strates “ that Albanians re turning to Monteneg ro[] from Albania or

the United States run the r isk of being arr es t ed, torture d and thrown into jail.” Acc ording ly , petitioner ar g ues, he has pr oven that he ha s a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution should he retur

n to Monteneg ro. Yet this is pure conje cture

. Even assuming arg uendo the illega lity of t hese a rre sts, petitioner has shown nothing to connec t this i ncident to his plight. See Krc ic , 186 F. App’ x at 542 (“ [T[ here is nothing in the re cord to c onnect that a ssassination to the Krcic s ....”). Mo re o v er , his alleg ation that e thn ic Al ba

nia ns are be ingpe rs e c uted and tor tur e d o n a

wi de sp re a d b a sis and

he the re fo re is

cer tain to be per secute d and tortured is w ithout substantiation. Even if it we re substantiate d, “[t] he fea red persec ution must relate to the a lien individually , not to the population ge nera lly .” Harche nko

v . I NS , 379 F.3d 405, 410 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). Th e mos t indi vid

ua lize d inf

or matio n pe tit ion e r of

fe re d the B I A wa s the a ff ida vit of Pr e nik Cama j. M r. Cama

j e la bo rate s o n p e tit ion e r’ s f

a mil y his to ry and a lle g e d h ist or y of pe rs e c uti on

in Albania a

nd Monteneg ro. This information, howe ver, d o es n o t demonstrate a ny chang ed-10-

c ir c ums tanc e s si nc e pe tit ion e r’ s in iti a l a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , an d in so fa

r a s it dis c us se s th e e ve nts of September

9, 2007 and the ong oing pe rsec ution of ethnic Albania ns, ag ain, petitioner ha s failed to show how such incidents a re material to his individual case. I n sum, the evidenc e prof fer ed by petitioner shows no “r easona bly specific information showing a rea l thr eat of individual persec ution.” Harche nko , 379 F.3d at 410 (quotation omitted). Acc ording ly , the B I A offe red a ra t i o n al explanation for deny ing pe titioner’s motion to reopen,

name ly , th a t e ve n a ssumin g he ha d p ro ve n c ha ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s, he ha d n ot p ro ve n th e mate ri a lity of those cir cumstance s to his indi vidual case . The B I A did not abuse its di s cr etion, and ther efor e

we a ffirm the de cision of the B I A to deny petitioner’s motion to reopen. B. Motion to Re consider Petitioner ref

ere nces his motion to reconsider in his brief on appeal, including it as an issue in his S tatement of the I ssues and arg uing in his Conclusion that the BI A “erre d in not [ r]eopening Petitioner’s ca se as the f actua l basis for Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen a nd Motion for Re c on sid e ratio n d e mon str a te d th e pe rs e c uti on and c le ar pr e jud ic e Pe tit ion e r s uf

fe re d. ” Ye t be c a

us e he did not include his motion to reconsi d er in his petiti on for r eview, the re is somewhat of an

a mbi g uit y a s to whe the r pe tit ion e r is att e mpt ingto p e tit ion fo r r e vie w the re of

. T o th e e xten t he is, we f ind that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the BI A’s denial of petitioner’ s motion to rec onsider. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) provides that “[n]otwit hstandingany oth er provision of law ... a pe tit ion fo r r e vie w f

ile d w ithan a

pp ro pr iate c ourt

of a pp e a ls i n a c c or da

nc e with t his se c tio n s ha ll be the sole a

nd exclusive means for judicia l reviewof an or der of remova l entere d or issued under

any pr ov isi on

of thi s cha

pte r. ” A p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w mus t be fi le d w ith in t hir ty da y s a ft e r t he date-11-

o f a f in a l o r d e r o f remova l. Id. § 1252(b)( 1). A sepa rate petition must be filed f or ea ch orde r, h o w e v e r , o r

t h e p e t i t i o n e r

w a i v e s r e v i e w t h e r e o f

. M o r e s p e c i f

i c a l l y, An orde r of deportation be comes final when issued, irrespe ctive of w hether a motion to reope n or re consider subs eq u en t l y i s filed. Se eSto nev . I NS , 514 U.S. 386, 395 (1995) ( holding that the fil ing of a mot ion to reopen or rec onsider does not a ffe ct the finality of an unde rlying de portation order ). As a c onsequenc e, a pa r tywho se e ks reopening or re consideration m ust fi le s eparate petitions for revie w w ithin 30 days of each fin al order. Id. A party who fails to file a tim ely petition for re view of an o rd e r w a ive s a

pp e llate re vie w o f t

hat or de r, a s th e statut or

y tim e fo r f

ili ngis both mandatory

and jurisdictional. Id. at 4 0 5 (c i t i n g Missouri v. Jenk ins , 49 5 U .S. 33, 45 (1990))

. Qerax hiu v. Gonzales , 206 F. App’x 476, 479 (6th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added) (interna l citations to other ca se re porters r emoved)

. I n the instant case , on J une 3, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to reconsider. H is petition for revie w, filed on June 6, 2008, identifies only an appe al of the B I A’s May 7, 2008 decision dismissing his moti on to reope n as untimely

. Moreove r, petitioner ha s not filed a timely petition for re view of the B I A’ s or de r de nying his mot ion to re c on sid e r. Ac c or din g ly , th e re is n o me ans of re vie w o f t

his order

. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (5) ( “Notwithstanding any other provision of law

... a petition for r eview f il e d w it h an a p p r o p r iate c o u rt o f a

p p e a ls in a c c o r d an c e w it h th is s e c ti o n s h a ll b e th e s o le and exclusive means for judicial revie w of an order of removal ente red or issued under a

ny provision of thi s c ha pte r . .. .” ); id. § 1252(b)( 1) (“The petition for re view must be filed not later than 30 day s after the date of the fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l.” ); Qe ra x hiu , 206 F. App’x at 479; see also, e.g. , Mu Ju Li v. Mukase y , 5 1 5 F. 3 d

5 7 5 , 5 7 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( d i s cu s s i n g Sto nev . I NS and noting that “[a]ccording to the [S upreme ] Court, the statute’s consolidation provision [8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6)] contemplates t h at i f t h e B I A i s s u e s a n o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e m o t i o nt o re co n s i d er , i ti s a s ep ar at e o rd er re qu i ri n g a separ ate pe tition for review .”).-12- III . C ON CL USI ON Be cause petitioner has not show n that the denial of his motion to reopen w as made without a rational expl anation, inexplicably depar ted from e stablished policies, or re sted on another impermissible basis, we DENY his petition for review

. I n addition, since petitioner f ailed to petition for r eview of the order denying his motion to rec onsider, this court does not have jurisdiction over the re view ther eof.