FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ BI AN os. A 79- 474- 393 & A 79- 474- 394 JAIM E ROBERTO OSORIO, CLARA PATRICI A SANCHEZ, et al ., Pe tit ion er s, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Petition for Reviewfrom an O rder of the Bo ar d of I m m igr at ionAppe al s

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 8, 200 5)

Be fo re BI RC H , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:On 25 Novembe r 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Sec urity Act of 2002 1 (“H SA”), Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. The HSA cre ated a new De partment of H omeland Security (“D HS”), a

bolished the I

NS, a nd transfe rre d its func tions to the new de partment. How ever ,

2 Jaim e Roberto O sorio (“ Jaim e”), his wife Clara Patric ia Sanchez (“ Clara ”), an dth e i r d au g h t e r M ayr aAl e

ja n dr aOs o r i o ( “Ma yr a ” ) ( c o l l e c t i v e l y,

“ Petititoners”), seek reviewof the Burea u of Im m igration Appeals’ (“ BIA ”) order de ny ing the ir

m oti on t o r ec onsi de r the BI A ’ s a ff irm at ionof

the I m m igr at ion Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) or de r of

r em ova l. B ec au se the P et iti one rs ’ r em ova l pr oc ee din gs co m m en ce d a ft er

1 Apr il 1997 , the pe rm an en t r ule s of the I lle ga l I m

m igr at ion Re fo rm and I m m igr an t R es pons ibi lity

A ct of 199 6, P ub. L . N o. 104 -2 08, 110 S tat. 3009 ( 1996 ) (“ II RI RA ”) , appl y . T he BI Adid not abuse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing the P et iti one rs ’ m oti on t o r ec onsi de r be ca use the y f ai le d to arg ue the appr opr iate gr ou nd s fo r su ch rel ie f. Ther efo re, we DENY th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. I. BACKG ROUND T he P et iti one rs are nativ es and c iti ze ns o f Co lom bia w ho w er e adm itt ed

to the U nit ed

S tate s a s no n- im

m igr an t vi sit or s. Ja im e w as a dm itt ed on 6 Augus t 2000 and authorized to stay until 3 0 June 20 01, and Clara and May ra w ere adm itted on 2 8 Novem

ber 2000 and auth orized to stay until 2 7 May

2001 . They rem ained in the United States bey ond th ese dates and on 28 Septem ber 2001 were issued Notices to Appear by the Im m igration and Naturalization Service (“ IN S”) 1beca

use this c ase was initiated while the I NS w as still in ex istence, this memora ndum refe rs to the ag ency as the “ I NS” rather than the “DHS.” 3 charging them

with re m ovabili ty

under Im m igration and Naturalization Ac t (“ IN A ”) § 23 7( a) (1 )( B) , 8 U . S. C. § 12 27( a) (1 )( B) , a s a lie ns who r em ai ne d inthe Uni te d S ta te s fo r a t im e lo ng er t ha n p erm it te d. O n 9 O ct obe r 2001 , Ja im e fi le d an a ppl ic at ionf

or a sy lum , w ithhol din g of re m ova l, and Unit ed

N at ion s C onve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e an d O the r Cr ue l, Inhum an , or

D eg ra din g T re atm en t or

P uni shm en t ( “ CA T ”) r el ie f on b eh al f of him self and his fam ily . In his application , he alleged that he wa s offere d em plo ym en t by

the N at ion al L ibe ratio n A rm y ( “ E LN ”) due to his e xpe rt ise and know le dge of

c om put er s. A cc or din g to Ja im e, the E LN thr eate ne d hi m and h is fam il y when he refu se d t he off

er o f em pl oym en t, an d h e was ki dn ap edby the ELN but r el ea se d onhis pr om ise to re tur n and a cc ep t the j ob. A ft er a he ar ing on the m eri ts , th e IJ de ni edth e ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT re lie f. T he I J f

ound that Ja im e (1 ) ha d no t sh own aw el l- fo unde d f ear of pe rs ec uti on o n apr ote ct ed gr ound be ca use the E LN a tte m

pte d to r ec ru it him

due t o h i s kn o w l e d g e , n o th i s p o l i t i c a l v i e w s , an d“ [ r ]e c r u i tmen to f

ani n d i v i du a l b y a guerilla organization is n ot, in and of itself, persecution on accountof a politicalI

NS v. Cardoza-F onseca , 480 U.S. 421, 107 S. C t. 1207 (1987). 2 Matter of

Mog harr abi, 19 I &NDec . 439 (B IA 1987). 3 4 opi nio n, ” A dm ini str at ive Re co rd “ A R” a t 73 -7 4, ( 2) la ck ed c re dib ili ty , and (3) could relocate to another ar ea of C olom bia without fear. T he P et iti one rs a

ppe al ed the I J’ s de ci sio n and arg ue d th at : ( 1) portio ns o f the decision were “ totally outsid e of the param eters of the U .S . S uprem e Court (C ar doz a- Fo nse ca ) ca se de ci sio n and the B. I. A . ( Mog harr ab i ) [c ] as e co nc ep t of 2 3 the ‘ re as ona

ble pe rs on, ’ ” A R at 18 ; ( 2) the de ci sio n w as “ not w ith in the le tte r nor the spirit of the Refugee A ct of 1980,” id.; and (3) the IJ ignored (a) the f act that Petitioners we re “ chosen po litical targets,” id. at 20, and (b) the curr ent country conditi ons, which has led to “ a civil war, ” id. at 22. O n 18 May 2004 , the B IA affi rm edth e IJ ’s dec is io n wi th ou t o pi ni on , pu rs ua ntto 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.1 (e)( 4) . O n 14 Jun e 2004 , the P et iti one rs f ile d ati m el y

m oti on f or r ec onsi de ratio n of the BIA ’ s decision. They argued that: (1) portions of the IJ’ s decision were

“ tot al ly out sid e of

the param et er s se t f

orth i n th e Su

pr em e Co urt c as e de ci sio n of Card oz a- Fo nse ca

and the B. I. A . c as e of

Mo gharr ab i, w he re the c onc ep t of the

‘ re as ona ble pe rs on’ is fu lly

e xpl ai ne d, ” id. a t 6; ( 2) the de ci sio n w as “ not w ith in the le tte r, nor

the spi ri t of

the Re fu ge e A ct

of 198 0, ” id. ; and ( 3) the I J “ did not give any we ight to the persecution [they ] endured in Colom bia” or consider5

current country

conditio ns, which has led to “ a civil war, ” id. at 8. T he Petitioners asserted that they

we re e ntitled to asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval, and CA T r elief because they

had “ a w ell-founded fear of persecution based on [their] experienced pe rs ec uti on” and “ w oul d be kil le d” if the y r et ur ne d to Co lom

bia . I d. a t 7. T he BIAdenied the Petitioners’ m otion for r econsideration based on its findin g that they had “ failed to specify

any particular e rrors of f

act or lawin the prior Board de ci sio n” but

m er el y r ei te rate d, “ in c onc lus or

y f as hio n, ” the arg um en ts the y m ad e on appeal. I d. at 2. T he BIAstated that it had consi dered those argum ents before re ac hin g ade ci sio n and w oul d no t r ev isi t the m . I d. T his ti m el y pe tit ionf or re vie wof the BI A ’ s de nia l of

the m oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n f

oll ow ed . T he Pe tit ion er s di d no t f

ile ape tit ionf

or r ev ie wof

the BI A ’ s f

ina l or de r of

r em ova l. II. D ISCU SSION Th e P et i t i o n er s ar g u e t h at , i nth ei r mot i o nfo r r ec o n s i d er at i o no f t h e B IA ’s fi na l or de r of

r em ova l, the y

li ste d th e re as ons fo r re co nsi de ratio n and s pe ci fi ed the part ic ular er

ro rs of f ac t and l aw , inc lud ing the I J’ s f ai lur e to a ppl y the “ re as ona

ble p er s o n ” c o n ce p tt o d ef

i n e “wel l -f

o u n d edfe aro f f

u tu re p er s ec u t i o n ,” an dth e B IA ’s fa ilure to co nsi de r that Ja im e “ w as pe rs ec ute d, thr eate ne d, and k idn ap ed by the E LN gue ri lla s. ” Appe llant’ s B ri ef a t 5, 6. T he gov er

nm en t r es pond s th at

the Pe tit ion er s’ m oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n m er el y

r ei te rate d th e ar gum en ts r ai se d in6

their brief in support of their appeal, which argum ents the BIAalrea dy had co nsi de re d and r ej ec te d. T hus, the gov er nm en t arg ue s, the P et iti one rs ’ m oti on d id not satis fy

the standard for re consideration, as it did no t specify any err ors of law or f ac t i n th e BI A ’ s pr ior

de ci sio n or

ide nti fy any le ga l arg um en t or

a spe ct of the cas e th atha d b een ov erl oo ke d. W e re vie wthe BI A ’ s de nia l of am oti on t o r ec onsi de r fo r anabuse of di sc ret io n. As sa ’ad v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 3 32 F.3d13 21 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Mot ion s to r ec onsi de r ar e dis favor ed in re m ova l pr oc ee din gs. S ee I m m igr at ion an d N at ur al iz at ionS er

v. v. D ohe rty , 502 U . S. 314 , 323 , 112 S . Ct . 719 ( 1992 ) (discussin g m otion s to reopen and explain ing th at such m otion s are disfavored be ca use “ as age ne ra l m atte r, e ve ry de lay w orks t o th e advanta ge of the de porta

ble alien who w ishes m erely

to rem ain in the United States”). Am otion to reconsider m ust spe ci fy “ the e rr or s of

f ac t or lawin the pr ior

[ BI A ] de ci sio n and s ha ll be supp orted by

pertinent authority .” 8 C. F. R. § 100 3.2(b)(1). Inthi s c as e, the BI Ac or

re ct ly f ound that the P et iti one rs ’ m oti on t o re co nsi de r fa ile d to spe ci fy any e rr or of lawor f ac t i n th e BI A ’ s pr ior

de ci sio n, but m er el y r ei te rate d arg um en ts that w er e co nsi de re d and r ej ec te d onappe al f ro m the IJ ’s ord er d en y in g t he ir app li cat io n fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT7

re lie f. A cc or din gly , the BI Adid not abuse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing the m oti on t o reconsider. III. C ONC LUS ION Th e B IA p ro p er l y d en i edth e P et i t i o n er s ’ m o t i o nt o re co n s i d erth e B IA ’s affir m ation of the IJ’ s order of r em oval because it only reiter ated argum ents that we re ad v an ce dan dre

je ct edo nap p ea l o f t h e I J ’s o rd erd en yin g Pe t i t i o n er ’s ap pl ic at io n fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d C AT reli ef. A cc or din gly , the pe tit ionf or r ev ie wis DEN IED .