FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APR 11, 2007 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. 06- 15407 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N os . A 97- 640- 059 A 97- 640- 060 R I C AR DO J OS E MAR T I N C AL DE R ON , SADD YS EDI FL OR M AN TE ROLA CARR ASQU EL , 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

a D 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

_________________________ ( A p r i l11, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R i c a r do J os e M a r t i n C a l de r on, a nd on be ha l f of hi s w i f e , S a ddy s E di f

l or M ant er ol a C arra squel , (c ol l ec t i vel y “ P et i t i on er s” ), have fi l ed a pet i t i on for r evi ew2

o f th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ’s ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g th e irm o tio n to re consi der a nd re op en i t s pri or order af fi rm i ng the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ’ s” ) fi nal order denyi ng as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef un der the U ni t ed N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a n, orD e gr a di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) . P e t i t i one r s , na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of V e ne z ue l a , a rr i ve d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s on M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , a n d f

ile d a n ap p lic a tio n f

o ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, as w el l as for prot ec t i on un der the C A T , on S ept em ber 24, 20 03 . T he IJdeni ed the i rappl i c a t i on, f

i ndi ng tha tP e t i t i one r s w e r e s t a tut or i l y i ne l i gi bl e t o appl y f or as yl um because thei r app l i ca t i on w as un t i m el y, and thatM art i n’ s t es t i m on y w as notc r e di bl e . O n M a y 31, 2006, the B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f i rm e d the de c i s i on of

the I J . P e t i t i one r s f

i l e d am ot i on t o r e c ons i de ra nd r e ope n w i th the B I A , w hi c h the B I A d e n ie d . M a r tin a n d h is w if e n o w p e titio n u s f

o rr e v ie w . R e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, w e c a nnotc onc l ude tha tthe B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w h e n it d e n ie d P e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r , b e c a u s e th e m o tio n m e r e ly r e i t e r a t e d th e e v i d e n c e a n d a r g u me n t s p r e v i o u s l y p r e s e n t e d t o th e BI A . 8 C. F. R § 1003. 2( b) ( 1) ; s e e a l s o 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 6) . W e a l s o c a nnotc onc l ude tha tthe B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d P e t i t i one r s ’ m ot i on t o r e ope n be c a us e the m ot i on f a i l e d t o i nc l ude e vi de nc e tha tw a s “ m a t e r i a l a nd w a s nota va i l abl e a ndPetitioners also argue within their petition that the BIA er red in its May

31, 2006 order 1 a ff ir mingtheIJ’s o rder denyinga sylum , w ithho ldingof remov al, a

nd CA T c laims . B e c a

us e Petitioners did not file an appe al of the B IA’s May 31, 2006 Order within the requisite time, we havenojurisdic tio n toc on sider t he searguments .

3 c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e d o rp r e s e n te d a t th e f o rm e rh e a r in g .” 8 C .F .R § 1 00 3. 2(c) (1); se e a l so 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9a(c )( 7). 1 A cco rd i n g l y, th e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew i s DE NI E D.