A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t3,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

A RI STI D E D I EG N A N ; G RE G O RI E F. TON YE, P et i t i on ers , v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t orney G e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 05- 9596 ( N os . A 95- 899- 329, 330) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , O’ BRI EN , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A r i s t i de D i egnan i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the I voryC oas t , and her hus band, G r egor i e Tony e, i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C amer oon ( pet i t i oner s ) . T hey p e tit io n fo r re v iew o f tw o o rd e rs is su e d b yth e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a lsM r. T o n y e is a d e ri v a tiv e a p p lic a n t o f M s . D ie g n a n ’s c la im s fo r r e lie f. 1 -2- ( B I A ) deny i ng thei r“M ot i on t o R econs i derand R emand. ” The pet i t i on for re v ie w is d is m is s e d in p a rt a n d d e n ie d in p a rt , a s s e t fo rt h b e lo w . Backg r ound M s . D i egnan appl i ed foras y l um , r es tr i ct i on on r emoval , and r el i ef unde r the C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e i n 2002. A ft era hea r i ng on the appl i cat i on, an 1 i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) i s s ued an or al deci s i on deny i ng the r el i ef s oughtand co n clud ing that p eti ti o n ers w ere ineligible fo r vo lun taryd ep arture. T h e B IA a ffir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n a n d d is m is s e d p e titio n e rs ’ a p p e a l o n A u g u s t 4 , 2 0 0 5 . I n s o doi ng, the B I A i s s ued a s epar at e butes s ent i al l yi dent i cal or derforeac h pet i t i oner . A dm i n. R . at101, 342. Pet i t i oner s di d notfi l e a pe t i t i on forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s A ugus t4 or der s . I ns t ead, theyfi l ed a “ M ot i on t o R econs i derand R emand, ” i d. a t1 2 - 2 2 , wh i c h th e BI A d e n i e d o n No v e mb e r2 , 2 0 0 5 , i n two s e p a ra te b u t– a g a in

– e s s e n tia lly id e n tic a l o rd e rs , i d. at2, 339. T hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on T h e m ajo rityo f

p e tit io n e rs’ a p p e llate b rie f c h a llen g e s th e B IA ’s A u g u st 4 o rd e rs. B u t p e tit io n e rs fa iled to tim e lyfile a p e tit io n fo r re v iew o f th e A u g u st 4 o rd e rs a s re q u ire d b y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(1 ), an d w e th e re fo re lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n s id e r t h e m . In

fa n zo n v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . We do , ho w ever, po sses s j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’s den i al of p et i t i on ers ’-3-

“M ot i on t o R econs i derand R emand, ” i d. at13 61 , w hich the B IA treat ed as a m o ti o n to reo p en an d rec o n side r.

A m ot i on t o r eopen s eeks t o pr es entevi dence thati s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en di s cover ed or pr es ent ed atthe form erhear i ng. A m ot i on t o r econs i der , on the other h an d , is av ail ab le t o raise erro rs of fa ct or law co m m itted b ythe B IA i n i t s p r i o rd e c i s i o n , a n d m u s tb e s u p p o r t e d b y p e r t i n e n ta u th o r i ty. Maham atv. G onz al es , 430 F. 3d 1281, 1283 n. 3 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot at i ons and cit ati o n s o m itted). W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deni al of pet i t i oner s ’ “M ot i on t o R econs i derand R e m a n d ” fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Inf

anz on , 386 F. 3d at1362 ( r evi ew i ng m o tio n to re o p e n fo r a b u se o f d isc re tio n ); Be lay - Ge b r u v . I NS , 327 F. 3d 998, 1000 n. 5 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( s ugges t i ng thatm ot i on t o r econs i deri s r evi ew ed for abus e of di s cr et i on) ; 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 2( a) ( pr ovi di ng that“[t ] he dec i s i on t o gr ant o r d e n ya m o tio n to re o p e n o r r e c o n s id e r i s w ith in th e d is c re tio n o f th e B o a rd ” ). “W e w i l l r ever s e onl yi f the B I A ’ s ‘ deci s i on pr ovi des no r at i onal expl anat i on, i nexpl i cabl ydepart s fr om es t abl i s hed pol i ci es , i s devoi d of anyr eas oni ng, or cont ai ns onl ys um m aryorconcl us orys t at ement s . ’ ” Maham at , 430 F. 3d at1283 ( quot i ng Os e iv . I

NS , 305 F. 3d 1205, 1208 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ) . H avi ng r evi ew ed the br i efs , the r ecor d, and the appl i cabl e l aw pur s uantt o the above - m ent i oned s t andar d, w e conc l ude thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng p e titio n e rs ’ “ M o tio n to R e c o n s id e r a n d R e m a n d .”-4- C oncl usi on T o th e e x t e n tp e t i t i o n e r s c h a l l e n g e th e BI A’ s o r d e r s o f Au g u s t4 , 2 0 0 5 , we D IS M IS S th e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w fo r w a n t o f ju ri s d ic tio n . See Inf

anz on , 386 F. 3d at1361. T o the ext entpet i t i oner s chal l enge the B I A ’ s or der s of N ovember2, 2005, deny i ng thei r“M ot i on t o R econs i derand R emand, ” w e D E N Y the pet i t i on fo rr e v i e w.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge