FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 09 -1 54 45 &1 0- 12 23 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy Nos . A07 9- 43 3- 30 7, A07 9- 16 1- 26 7 PAULIN GJERKAJ , a.k .a. Man us ha n Al la , MIM OZA GJERKAJ, RENATA GJERKAJ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne rs , vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io ns forRev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 2, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Pet it io ne r Pau li n Gjerk aj (“ Gjerka j”), hi s wi fe, Mi m oz a, an d t he ir d au gh te r, Ren at a, na ti ve s an d c it iz en s o f Alb an ia , pet it io n t hi s co urt t o re vi ew two ord ers of th e Bo ardof I m

mig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) : (1 ) th e BIA’s Oct ob er 1 3, 2 00 9 o rd er di sm is si ng pe ti ti on ers ’ ap pe al of t he de ci si on of a n Immig rat io n J ud ge (“ IJ ”) de nyin g p et it io ne rs ’ ap pl ic at io ns forasylu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”) an d o rd eri ng pe ti ti on ers ’ rem ov al , and

1 (2 ) th e BIA’s Ma y

10 , 20 10 ord er d en y in g p et it io ne rs ’ m ot io n t o re op enth e rem ov al pro ceed in gs to all ow the IJ t o re co ns id er the ir app li cat io ns forasylum . Gjerka j, as le adpe ti ti on er, pre se nt s t hr ee i ss ue s i n b rie fin g the se 2
co ns ol id at edpe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w: wh ethe r subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts (1) th e IJ ’s andth e BIA’s ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty find in gs reg ard in g h is tes ti m on y an d (2 ) th e IJ ’s andBIA’s al te rn at iv e h ol di ng th atpe ti ti on ers fai le d t o e st ab li sh pa st pe rs ecu ti on or awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on onacco un t o f po li ti cal

Petitioners also seek revie w of the denial of their application for protec tion under the U.N. 1 Convention Ag ainst Torture (“CAT” ). In their appea l of the I J ’s decision to the BIA, petitioners did not challeng e the I J ’s denia l o f C AT re lief. Petitioners there fore failed to exhaust their administrative reme dies as to the I J ’s CAT ruling and prec luded this court from consider ing the ruling . Amaya-

Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 463 F.3d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 49-51 (11th Cir. 2006). We acc ordingl y dismiss the petition to the extent that it seeks revie w of the ag ency ’s denial of CAT relief . The B IA trea

ted Gjer kaj as lea d petitioner; we do likew ise. 2 2op in io n, an d (3 ) whe th er the BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g p et it io ne rs ’

m ot io n t o re op enth e rem ov al pro ceed in gs . I. A. The fir sttwo is su es are p res en te d i n t he pe ti ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s Octo be r 13 , 20 09 ord er d is m is si ng pe ti ti on ers ’ ap pe al of t he IJ’s re m ov al ord er. Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci si on , exc ep t t o the ex te nt th atth e BIA ex pr es sl y

ad op ts th e IJ ’s dec is io n. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Altho ug h the BIA in th is cas e d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t the IJ’s d eci si on , itdi d re ly on t he IJ’s fi nd in g t ha t Paul in Gjerka j’ s te st im on y was n otcred ib le inreac hi ng it s d eci si on to di sm is s p et it io ne rs ’ ap pe al . W e acc or di ng ly revi ew bo th th e IJ ’s andBIA’s de ci si on s. Ta ng v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 57 8 F .3d12 70 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). To the ex te ntth atth es e d eci si on s wer e b as edon a le ga l d et erm in at io n, o ur rev ie w is de no vo . Moh ammed v. Ash cr of

t , 26 1 F .3d12 44 , 12 47 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The factua l fi nd in gs , in cl ud in g c red ib il it y an d t ho se un de rp in ni ng asylu m el ig ib il it y , onwhi chth e ag en cy ’s leg al de te rm in at io ns are b as edare re vi ewed un de r th e “ subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t.” Ku evi ak oe v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 56 7 F .3d 13 01 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). W e aff irm th e ag en cy ’s dec is io ns if t he y are 3supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o f rec or d. Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3d at12 84 . This st an da rdis “ hi gh ly defer en ti al .” Thu s, we re ve rs e o nl y “ if th e ev id en ce co m

pe ls a reas on ab le factfin de r to fin d o th erwi se .” Ku evi ak oe , 56 7 F.3 d a t 1 30 4 (quo ta ti on om it te d) ; Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3d at12 84 . Und er thi s t es t, we “ vi ew th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n an d draw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). The fa ctth atev id en ce m ay supp ort a f

in di ng co nt rary to t he ag en cy ’s fin di ng is no t en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al . Id
. Adv ers e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns m us t b e m ad e expl ic it ly. See Y an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 41 8 F .3d11 98 , 12 01 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th atth e IJm us t m ak e “ cl ean de te rm in at io ns of c red ib il it y .”). “ Onc e anadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g is m ad e, th e b ur de n i s o n the ap pl ic an t al ie n t o s ho w th atth e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de ci si on was n otsupp orte d b y ‘ sp eci fic , cog en t re as on s’ or was no t b as edon subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” For gu e v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . An al ie n’s t es ti m on y , if fo un d t o b e cre di bl e, m ay be su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th e al ie n’s el ig ib il it y

to asylu m . Ku evi ak

oe , 56 7 F .3dat 1 30 4. By the same tok en , anali en ’s tes ti m on y , if fo un d t o b e n otcred ib le , m ay be su ffi ci en t t o d eny

th e 4al ie n’s el ig ib il it y to asylu m . Id
. at 1 30 4- 05 . An al ie n m ay

qu al ify for as y lu m

by pres en ti ng cred ib le ev id en ce s ho win g

“ (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on onacco un t o f he r po li ti cal op in io n o r an y ot he r pr ot ect ed gr ou nd , or (2 ) a ‘well- fo un de d fe ar’ th athe r po li ti cal op in io n o r an y ot he r pr ot ect edgro un d wi ll cau se futur e p ers ecu ti on .” Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 40 1 F.3 d 1 22 6, 1 23 0- 31 (11 thCir . 20 05 ). “ [P]erse cu ti on is anex tre m e co nc ep t, requi rin g m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of v erb al haras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n, [an d] m ere h aras sm en t d oe s n otam ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on .” Se pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 12 31 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) ; se e al so Djo nd a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 51 4 F .3d11 68 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th at36 -h ou r de te nt io n, b eat in g, an d th reatof a rres t d idno t am ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on ); Si lv a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 8 F .3d 12 29 , 12 37 -3 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 6) (th reat en in g n ot e, an on ym ou s t hr eat en in g p ho ne cal ls , andbe in g s ho t atby unkno wn as sa il an ts were i ns uf fic ie ntto sh ow p as t pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n p ol it ic al op in io n) . Mo reo ve r, “ ev id en ce tha t ei th er i s co ns is te ntwith a ct s o f pr iv at e v io le nc e o r . . . tha t m erel y

sh ows th ata pe rs on ha s b een th e v ic ti m of c riminal act iv it y , do es no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce o f pe rs ecu ti onba se d o n ast atut or il y pro te ct edgro un d.” Rui z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen
. , 44 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 59 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). Pro te ct edgro un ds are r ace, re li gi on , nat io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu la r so ci al gro up , or p ol it ic al 5op in io n. Sa nc he z v. U.S. Att’

y Gen
. , 39 2 F .3d43 4, 4 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). If subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e fi nd in g t ha t an ali ensu ffer edpa rti cu la r ha rm s fo r rea so ns ot he r th anrace , rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, etc. , th enth e p et it io n fo r rev ie w wil l b e d en ie d. Se e, e.g . , Sc he er er v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 5 F .3d13 11 , 13 16 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . If the pe ti ti on er d em on st rat es pa stpe rs ecu ti on , th ere i s a r eb ut tabl e pr es um pt io n t ha t h e h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . 8 C.F.R § 2 08 .13 (b )(1 ). If h e can no t s ho w pas t p ers ecu ti on , th enth e p et it io ne r m us t de m on st rat e a wel l-f

ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on th atis bo th subjec ti ve ly ge nu in e an d o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e. Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 9. An ap pl ic an t m ay

qu al ify for as y lu m

ev enwitho utest ab li sh in g awell
fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on if “ (A) The ap pl ic an t h as de m on st rat ed co m pe ll in g re as on s fo r be in g u nwi ll in g o r un ab le to return t o t he co un try aris in g ou t o f th e se ve rit y

of t he pa stpe rs ecu ti on ; o r (B) Th e ap pl ic an t h as est ab li sh ed th atth ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t h e o r sh e m ay su fferot he r se rio us ha rm up on rem ov al to th atco un try.” Meh meti v. Uni te d Sta tes At t’yGen. , 57 2 F .3d 11 96 , 12 00 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng 8 C.F .R. § 1 20 8.1 3( b) (1 )(i ii )). Bu t, thi s fo rm of r el ie f requi res anap pl ic an t t o s ho w “ se ve re h arm ” an d “ lo ng -la st in g effe ct s,” a ndis res erv ed“ fo r th e m os t ex tra or di na ry cas es .” Id
. at12 00 -0 1 6(co ll ect in g c as es fro m ot he r Ci rcu it s) . An al ie n s eek in g wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al un de r th e INA si m il arl y m us t sh ow tha t h is “ li fe o r free do m wou ldbe th reat en edinth atco un try becaus e o f th e al ie n’s ra ce, rel ig io n, n at io na li ty, m em be rs hi p i n apa rti cu lar so ci al gro up , or po li ti cal op in io n.” Se eINA § 2 41 (b )(3 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A); Rui z , 44 0 at12 57 . The b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al , ho wev er, i s “ m or e li ke ly tha n n ot ,” an d, thu s, i s “ m or e st rin ge nt ” th anth e st an da rdforgra nt in g as y lu m . Se

pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2. W it h t he for eg oi ng pri nc ip le s i n h an d, we turn t o the two is su es th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w of the BIA’s Octo be r 13 , 20 09 ord er p res en ts : the y co nc ern(1) th e cred ib il it y

of P au li n Gjerk aj’ s t es ti m on y , and(2) pe ti ti on er’s p ers ecu ti onon acco un t o f po li ti cal op in io n. B. W e b eg in by focu si ng onth e th ree i nc id en ts th at , acco rd in g t o P au li n Gjerka j’ s t es ti m on y , supp orte d p et it io ne rs ’ ap pl ic at io ns forasylum an d withh ol di ng of r em ov al . The fi rs t i nc id en t t oo k p la ce i n 1 98 5, af te r Gjerka j ask ed , ata publ ic y ou th forum , why Alb an iadi dn ’t “ ha ve rel ig io us pl aces li ke ev erybod y el se inth e wor ld .” The p ol ic e cam e to hi s h om e, acc us edhi m of s pr ead in g pr op ag an daag ai ns t the Co m m un is t Pa rty, andarre st edhi m . He was s en te nc edto

7pr is on witho uta tr ia l; fiv e y ears lat er h e was rel eas ed .

In19 92 , he jo in edth e Ch ris ti an -Dem oc rat ic Part y du e to hi s an ti
Co m m un is t p ol it ic al vi ews ; h is wife an d fa th er al so joi ne d t he Part y . In 1 99 7, two m as ke d m enph y si cal ly ass au lt edhi m an d t hr eat en edto ki ll hi m if h e co nt in ue d hi s p ol it ic al act iv it ie s ag ai ns t the rul in g S oc ia li stPart y . A seco ndin ci de nt oc cu rredth e sa m e y ear; he was i nv ol ve d i n a n a rg um en t an d fi gh ti ng th atoc cu rred ata ne wss ta nd . He des cri be d t he in ci de ntina st at em en t ap pe nd edto hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. Atso m e p oi ntth aty ear, h e wen t i nt o h id in g fe ari ng forhi s l ife . InJu ne 19 98 , Gjerkaj’s fathe r was m ur de red“ ex ecu ti on st y le ” in fro ntof hi s h ou se , andGjerka

j cam e o utof h id in g t o a tt en d t he fun eral . He bel ie ve d t ha t th e m em be rs of t he So ci al is t Pa rty hadco m m it te d t he m

ur de r. Sho rtl y

aft er h is fathe r’s de ath, h e was de ta in edfor78 ho ur s. So m eo ne to ldhi m th atth e So ci al is ts cau se d h is de te nt io n b ecau se of h is po li ti cal act iv it ie s. Fo ll owi ng hi s re le as e, he ag ai n wen t i nt o h id in g, an d s ta y edinhi di ng for ne arl y fou r y ears , un ti l h e cam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n J anua ry 20 02 . He sai d t ha t h e le ft Al bani a due to hi s an d h is fam il y ’s m is tre atm en t o n a cco un t o f th ei r m em be rs hi p i n t he Ch ris ti an -Dem oc rat ic Part y . Mi m oz a Gjerk aj tes ti fie d t ha t s he lef t Al ba ni a o utof f

ear f orhe r li fe. Sh e cl ai m edth atinApri l 2 00 0, thr ee m as ke d m ensh ov edhe r in to a car a ndask edhe r 8fo r he r hu sb an d’s wh ereabo ut s. Whensh e ref us edto tel l the m , th ey

st ru ckhe r in th e fac e an d t hr ew he r ou t o f th e car . Som e rel at iv es fou ndhe r lying onth e gr ou ndun co ns ci ou s. InNov em be r 20 00 , so m eo ne att em pt edto ki dn ap he r daug ht er, Ren at a, ata wed di ng rece pt io n. Gjerk aj’ s co us in in te rv en edan d fo il ed th e at te m pt . She an d R en at a cam e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n the ne xtm on th . Inad di ti on to hi s an d h is wife ’s tes ti m on y , Gjerkaj p res en te d s ev eral do cu m en ts , in cl ud in g S ta te Department C ou nt ry Rep orts for20 01 , 20 02 , and 20 06 , andlet te rs fro m

th e Ch ris ti an -Dem oc rat ic Part y vo uc hi ng forGjerka

j and hi s wi fe’s m em

be rs hi p a ndexpe rie nc es with the Part y . The IJ d en ie d p et it io ne rs ’ ap pl ic at io ns forasylu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al an d o rd eredth ei r rem ov al be cau se Pau li n Gjerk aj fai le d t o p res en t cred ib le an d c on si st en t t es ti m on y rel at in g t o s ig ni fic an t as pe ct s o f hi s cl ai m s o f pe rs ecu ti on , andne it he r he no r Mi m oz a Gjerk aj est ab li sh edpa stpe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . Add res si ng Pau li n Gjerk aj’ s t es ti m on y , th e IJm ad e a cl ean cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, s pe ci fic al ly citi ng m at eri al in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenth e te st im on y Pau li n Gjerk aj gav e o n d ire ctan d c ro ss -ex am in at io n andst at em en ts he m ad e in hi s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, es pe ci al ly as to th e in ci de nt s t ha t al le ge dl y oc cu rredin19 97 . Fo r ex am pl e, in hi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n, h e st at edth atinFeb ru ary 19 97 , so m eo ne

9hi t h im

at ane wss ta ndwhi le he was re ad in g apro -Dem oc rat ic Part y ne wsp ap er, bu t h e li st edno ot he r in ci de ntof p ers ecu ti on oc curri ng du rin g t ha t year. He di d no t m en ti on th is ne wss ta ndev en t wh enhe to okth e st an d a t the rem ov al he ari ng , ho wev er, b utwhen qu es ti on edab ou t i t o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n, h e si m pl y st at ed , “ I kn ow i t h ap pe ne d b y

th e n ews st an d, b utI do n’t re cal l the de ta il s o n t ha t o ne .” Fo cu si ng on 19 97 , he s ai d t ha t p ol ic e g rab be d h im , bea t h im up , and“ fla t o ut ” to ld hi m th atif h e co nt in ue d t o p art ic ip at e in po li ti cs , th ey wou ldki ll hi m . Later t ha t y ear, two m as ke d m enjum pe d o utof acar o ut si de hi s h ou se , bea t h im up , and th reat en edto “ el im in at e” h im if h e co nt in ue d t o t al k n eg at iv el y ab ou t the So ci al is t Part y . He att em

pt edto ex pl ai n t hi s i nc on si st en cy by stat in g t ha t two i nc id en ts oc cu rredin19 97 , on e o f whi chwas t he ev en t atth e n ews st an d, b utth is su m m ary was in co ns is te ntwith b ot h h is tes ti m on y on di rectex am in at io n andwhathe st at ed in hi s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n. Refe rri ng to hi s fa th er’s m ur de r, th e IJno te d t ha t h e was m erel y sp ecu la ti ng whe n h e sa idth atth e cu lp rit s wer e So ci al is ts . He bel ie ve d t hi s ev enth ou gh hi s fathe r ha d n otbe enin vo lv edinpo li ti cs an d t he So ci al is ts ha d n o re as on to be in te res te d i n h im . Turn in g t o t he tes ti m on y

of M im oz a Gjerk aj, th e IJfou ndth atitfai le d t o sh ow an yth in g ri si ng to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . He cred it edhe r rel at io n o f th e 10Apr il 20 00 en co un te r wit h t he m as ke d m en , fou ndth atsh e d idno t s uf fer s eri ou s ha rm , andth atth e ex pe rie nc e d idno t ar is e to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . As fo r th e at te m pt edab du ct io n o f he r daug ht er, s he on ly spe cu la te d abo utwhy he r daug ht er wou ldbe a vi ct im

or wh o m ay

have be enbe hi ndth e at te m pt . Afte r co nc lu di ng th atpe ti ti on ers fai le d t o m ak e o uta cas e fo r as y lu m , th e IJ fo un d tha t the y

ha d n otest ab li sh eda well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on if re m ov ed to Alb an ia . Pau li n Gjerk aj hadrem ai ne d t he re fo r ne arl y fou r y ears witho utha rm fo ll owi ng hi s fa th er’s d eat h; Mi m oz a Gjerk aj hadno t b eenin vo lv edinpo li ti cs ; th e So ci al is t Pa rty was n o l on ge r in co nt ro l; th e Dem oc rat ic Part y was i n p owe r; an d Al ba ni a was a pa rli am en ta ry de m oc racy. W e co nc lu de th atsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e IJ ’s andBIA’s fi nd in gs th atPau li n Gjerk aj’ s t es ti m on y was n otcred ib le insi gn ifi can t re sp ect s, an d t he ag en cy ’s con cl us io n tha t p et it io ne rs fai le d t o e st ab li shpa stpe rs ecu ti on or awell
fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . The IJan d the BIA d idno t err in co nc lu di ng th atPau li n Gjerk aj was n oten ti tl edto hu m an it ari anasylum be cau se he di d n ot sh ow tha t h is im

pr is on m en t i n 1 98 5 was su ffi ci en tl y sev ere o r ha d l on g- la st in g effe ct s, es pe ci al ly whe re h e co nt in ue d t o o pp os e th e Co m m un is t/ So ci al is t Pa rty aft er b ei ng rel eas edfro m pri so n. Se e Meh meti , 57 2 F .3dat 1 20 0- 01 . He di d n ot es tabl is h t ha t h e su ffer edpe rs ecu ti on be y on d t he ti m e p eri odof h is ori gi na l 11im

pr is on m en t. Ass um in g t he accu racy of h is tes ti m on y ab ou t the 19 97 be at in gs , th e 1 99 8 d et en ti on fol lo win g h is fathe r’s de ath, an d M im oz a’s acc ou ntof h er al le ge d k idnapp in g, s uc h m is tre atm en t d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on , es pe ci al ly whe re n ei th er Paul in no r Mi m oz a Gjerk aj su ffer edm ajorin juri es . Se e Djo nd a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 51 4 F .3d11 68 (11 thCir . 20 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th at36
- ho urde te nt io n, b eat in g, an d t hr eatof a rres t d idno t am ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on ). Insu m , we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w of the BIA’s Octo be r 13 , 20 09 rem ov al ord er. II. Pet it io ne rs askth atwe fin d a n abu se of d is cret io n i n t he BIA’s May 10 , 20 10 ord er d eny in g t he ir m ot io n t o re op en . Se e Abdi v. U.S. Att’ y Gen
. , 43 0 F .3d 11 48 , 11 49 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Mo ti on s t o re op enm ay be fil edbe fo re the BIA whe n ap pr op ria te . Se eINA § 2 40 (c)( 7) , 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 ); 8 C.F.R. § § 10 3.5 (a)( 2) , 10 03 .2(c ), 10 03 .23 (b )(3 ). Suc h m ot io ns are d is fav or ed , esp eci al ly in a rem ov al pro ceed in g, “ whe re, as a ge ne ral m at te r, ev ery de la y work s t o t he adva nt ag e o f th e d ep ortabl e al ie n wh o wi sh es m erel y to rem ai n i n t he Uni te d St at es .” Abdi , 43 0 F .3dat 1 14 9 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Our rev ie w is li m it edto whe th er the re h as be enanex erci se of a dm in is tra ti ve di sc ret io n a ndwhet he r th e ex erci se ha s b eenarb it rary or cap ric io us . Abdi , 43 0 F .3dat 1 14 9. 12A m ot io n t o re op en“ sh al l s ta te th e n ew fact s tha t wi ll be pro ve n a t a

he ari ng to be he ldif t he m ot io n i s g ran te d, an d s ha ll be supp orte d b y affi da vi ts or ot he r ev id en ti ary m at eri al .” 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(B) ; Abdi , 43 0 F .3dat 1 14 9. Mo ti on s t o re op enm ay

be gra nt edif t he re i s n ew ev id en ce tha t i s m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e b een di sc ov eredor p res en te d a t the rem ov al he ari ng . Se e 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)( 1) ; se e a ls o Ab di , 43 0 F .3dat 1 14 9. To m ak e su cha sh owi ng , th e al ie n “be ars a ‘heav y bu rd en ,’ an d m

us t ‘pre se ntev id en ce o f su cha na tu re tha t the [BIA] is sat is fie d t ha t i f pr oc eed in gs be fo re the [IJ ] were reo pe ne d, wi th all att en da ntde la y s, the ne w evi de nc e o ffer edwou ldli ke ly chan ge th e res ul t i n t he cas e.’” Aliv. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 44 3 F .3d80 4, 8 13 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . W e fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he BIA’s de ni al of p et it io ne rs ’ m ot io n t o reo pe n. Th e m ot io n re li edpri m ari ly upo n e vi de nc e th atpe ti ti on ers co ul d h av e pr es en te d a t the ir r em ov al he ari ng . W e th eref or e d en y th e p et it io n t o re vi ew th e BIA’s Ma y

10 , 20 10 ord er. PETITIONS FOR REVIEW D ISM ISSED, IN PART; DENIED IN PART. 3

See note 1 supra. 3 13