FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 22, 2008 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. 07- 14512 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N os . A 98- 381- 329 & A 98- 381- 330 G L O R I A E M P E R A T R I Z C A T A R I , I V A N F R A N C I S C O R A M O S , E D U A R D O J A V I E R R A M O S , 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

_________________________ ( M ay 22, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an dB L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

G l o ri a E m p eratri z C at ari , Iv an F ran ci sco R am o s, an dE d u ard o Jav i er R am o s, throu gh coun se l , pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) d e c is io n a f

f irm in g th e I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) o r d e rf in d in g th e m r e m o v ab le a nd di s m i s s i ng the i rappl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um , a nd de ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i ons f or 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 tyA c t( “ I N A ” ) a nd r e lie f u n d e rth e U n ite d N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e a n dO th e rC ru e l, I n h u m a n a n d D e g r a d in g T r e a tm e n t o rP u n is h m e n t ( “C A T ” ) , I N A § § 2 0 8 , 2 4 1 , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1231; 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16( c ) . P e t i t i one r s a l s o s e e k r e vi e w of the B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

th e irm o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . P e titio n e r s a r g u e th a t th e I Ja n dB I A e rr e din d e n y in g th e irap p lic a tio n s . T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponds tha tw e ha ve no j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the I J ’ s de c i s i on orthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on a f f i rm i ng the I Jbe c aus e pe t i t i one r s f i l e d the i rpe t i t i on f

or r e v ie w m o r e th a n 3 0 d a y s a f te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l. W e r e v ie w is s u e s o f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . B r o o k s v . A s h c r o f t, 283 F . 3d 1268, 1272 ( 11th 2002) . A pe t i t i one rha s 30 da y s f r om the da t e of

the f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l to s e e kr e v ie w in th is C o u rt. I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ; D a k a n e v . U .S . A tt’yG e n ., 3 9 9 F .3 d1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 2 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e d e a d lin e is n o t to lle db yth e f ilin g o f am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . S e e J a gge rnauth v. U . S . A tt ’ yG e n. , 432 F . 3d 1346, 1350- 51 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( obs e rvi ng tha tthe f

i l i ng of am ot i on t o r e c ons i de rdoe s nota f f e c tthe f i na l i tyof3

the un derl yi ng order or t ol l the 30 -dayperi od for pet i t i on i ng for r evi ew of such order) . B e c aus e pe t i t i one r s f

i l e d the i rpe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w m or e tha n 30 da y s a f t e rthe B I A ’ s f i na l or de rof

r e m ova l a nd the s t a tut oryt i m e l i m i ti s nott ol l e d byam ot i on to re co n sid er , w e h av e n o ju risd icti o n to re v iew th e I J’s d ec isio n o r th e B IA ’s d e c is io n a f

f irm in g th e I J . A s f orthe m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r , i n the i rc ouns e l e d br i e f on appe a l , the pe t i t i one r s m e nt i on the m ot i on, butthe bul k of the br i e f c ha l l e nge s the de c i s i ons c onc e rni ng the i runde r l y i ng appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd C A T r e l i e f

. T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tpe t i t i one r s ha ve aba ndone d the i s s ue of w hether the B IA abused i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng thei r m ot i on t o rec on si der be c aus e pe t i t i one r s f

a i l t o s uf f i c i e nt l yr a i s e the i s s ue a nd i n a nye ve ntthe pe t i t i one r s c a n s how no abus e of di s c r e t i on. W he n ape t i t i one rf

a i l s t o of f e ra r gum e nton a n i s s ue , w e c ons i de rtha ti s s ue abando ned. S epul veda v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 30 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 2005) . “ P a s s i ng r e f

e r e nc e s t o i s s ue s a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o r a i s e ac l a i m f

orappe a l , a nd such i ss ues are deem ed abando ned. ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). O thew i se , w e r evi ew th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

am o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . A ss a’ad v . U .S . A tt ’y G en ., 3 3 2 F .3 d1 3 2 1 , 1 3 4 1 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e B IA ’s4

d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g o rd e n y i n g s u c h amo t i o n i s “ v e ryb r o a d . ” Sc h e e r e rv . U . S. A tt’yG e n ., 5 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A ft erthe B IA has a ff

i rm ed an IJ ’ s orderof re m ov al , the al i en m ayse ek re consi dera t i on on the grou nd thatthe B IA has m ade al egal or fa ctual error. S ee I N A § 240( c ) ( 6) ; 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 6) ( C ) ; 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( b) ( 1) . A m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on m us ts pe c i f ythe e rr or s of

l a w orf a c ti n the pr e vi ous or de ra nd b e s u p p o rte d b yp e rtin e n t au th o r ity . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 6 ) ( C ) . A m o tio n to re consi der thatm er el y r es t at es the ar gu m ent s thatthe B IA previ ou sl y r ej ec t ed p ro v id es n o re as o n fo r th e B IA to ch an g e its p rio r d ec isio n . S ee C alle v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n ., 5 0 4 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( n o tin g th a t “m e r e ly r e ite r a tin g a r g u m e n ts p r e v io u s lyp r e s e n te dto 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 df o ras u c c e s s f

u l m o tio n to re consi der. ” ( qu ot i ng 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b)(1))) . A lth o u g h ac lo s e c a ll, it ap p e a r s th a t p e titio n e r s , in th e irc o u n s e le db r ie f , have i nsuffi ci ent l y r ai se d a chal l enge t o the deni al of the m ot i on t o rec on si der b ecau se th ey h av e n o td i scu ssed th e st an d ard o f rev i ew n o r th e rel ev an tl aw ; th u s, the yha ve aba ndone d c l a i m s r e l a t e d t o tha tm ot i on. E ve n i f notaba ndone d, the p e titio n e r s ’ s ta te m e n t th a t th e B I A m a d e n o p r o b a tiv e f in d in g s o rle g a l a n a ly s is is no tbo rne outby the re cord. T he B IA ’ s dec i si on , al tho ug h sho rt , cont ai ned an e xpl i c i tf i ndi ng tha tthe pe t i t i one r s ha d r a i s e d i n the i rm ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on5

the s a m e a r gum e nt s a l r e a dyc ons i de r e d i n the e a r l i e rappe a l , a nd m or e ove rthe B I A ’ s de c i s i on c i t e s author i tyc ove r i ng the l e ga l e f f e c tof tha tf i ndi ng. T he p e titio n e r s d o n o t a r g u e w h yth e B I A s h o u ldh a v e r e v is ite dth o s e s a m e a r g u m e n ts . F i na l l y , t o the e xt e ntthe pe t i t i one r s i n the i rm ot i on t o r e c ons i de rr e i t e r a t e d the ar gu m ent s f

rom the earl i erappeal , they f ai l ed t o speci fy“ errors of fa ctor l aw ” a s r e qui r e d f

oras uc c e s s f

ul m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . S e e C a l l e , 504 F . 3d a t1329 ( q u o tin g 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ) . Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n dc o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d is m is s p e titio n e r s ’ p e titio n in p a rt, a n d d e n yth e irp e titio n in p a rt. D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.