FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 10, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 19 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 97 -6 36 -9 26 MARIA LONIGRO BORNEO, RICAR DO HERNANDE Z HORVATH, RICAR DO M. HERNANDEZ LONIGRO, MARIAN HERNANDEZ, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne rs , vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 10 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mar iaLon ig ro Bo rn eo , alo ng with h er h us bandan d t wo ch il dr en , pet it io ns

fo r rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) fin al ord er d en y in g h er m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o f th e BIA’s earli er o rd er af firm in g t he immig rat io n jud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f he r ap pl ic at io n fo r withh ol di ng of r em ov al an d re li ef u nd er th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um anor Deg rad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”), 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( b) (3 )(A). See 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c). Bo rn eo arg ue s tha t the BIA erre d i n d en y in g h er m ot io n t o reco ns id er b ecau se th e h aras si ng in ci de nt s s he su ffer edinhe r ho m e co un try of Ven ezu el a ro se to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti onan d o ccu rredon acco un t o f a p ro te ct ed gr ou nd . She als o a rg ue s tha t the reco rdco m pe ls a co nc lu si on th atsh e wou ld li ke ly be p ers ecu te d a ndto rtu redup on return t o Ven ezu el a.

“ W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re co ns id er fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Cal le v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 5 04 F.3d13 24 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n “ sh al l s ta te th e rea so ns for th e m ot io n b y

sp eci fy in g the erro rs of f

actor l aw in th e p rio r [BIA] dec is io n andsh al l b e supp orte d b y pe rti ne nt au th or ity .” Id . at 1 32 9 (quo ti ng 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (b )(1 )). Howe ve r, a “ m ot io n th atm erel y

rep ub li sh es th e rea so ns th atha d fa il edto co nv in ce the tri bu na l i n the fir stpl ace g iv es th e tr ib un al no reas onto ch an ge it s m in d.” Id . Accor di ng ly,

“ m erel y rei te rat in g arg um en ts pre vi ou sl y pre se nt edto th e BIA d oe s n otco ns ti tu te 2‘spe ci fy in g . . . erro rs of f actor l aw’ as requi redfora su cces sf ul m ot io n t o reco ns id er.” Id . (qu ot in g 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .2(b )(1 )). To the ex te ntBo rn eo see ks to ch al le ng e th e BIA’s i ni ti al ord er af firmin g the IJ ’s den ia l o f withh ol di ng of r em ov al an d C AT pro te ct io n, we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w hercla im s, as sh e h adno t fi le d ape ti ti on forrev ie w of the BIA’s or ig in al de ci si on . See 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(5 ) (“ [A] peti ti on forrev ie w fil edwith a n ap pr op ria te co urt o f ap pe al s . . . sh al l b e th e so le an d e xc lu si ve m ean s fo r jud ic ia l rev ie w of an o rd er o f rem ov al .”). As t o t he BIA’s de ni al of r eco ns id erat io n, we d is cern no ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Inhe r m ot io n t o re co ns id er, Bo rn eo di d n otsp eci fy an y erro rs of f

actor l aw th at oc cu rredinth e BIA’s o rig in al ord er d is m is si ng he r ap pe al . Rath er, Bo rn eo rai se d es se nt ia ll y

th e sa m e arg um en ts as s he di d i n h er i ni ti al ap pe al of t he IJ’s d eci si on , na m el y th atth e BIA h adfai le d t o c um ul at iv el y co ns id er i nc id en ts of h aras sm en t th atsh e fac edinVene zu el a. Res ta ti ng th e sa m e arg um en ts gave th e BIA n o reas onto ch an ge it s m in d o n re co ns id erat io n, an d fa il ur e to sp eci fy erro rs of f

act orlaw i n t he in it ia l o rd er wi ll pre cl ud e a s uc ces sf ul m ot io n t o re co ns id er. See Cal le , 50 4 F .3dat 1 32 9. Acco rd in gl y , th ere was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d we de ny Born eo ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w. PETI TI ON DENI ED. 3