[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15346

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A200-665-804

MOHAMMED IK MASALMEH, 

a.k.a. Abdel Khalig Ibrahim, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(October 7, 2015)

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-15346 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Mohammed Ibrahim Khalid Masalmeh appeals from the denial of his motion 

to reconsider the dismissal of his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA). He challenges the denial of his petition for withholding of removal under 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and seeks relief under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). However, we conclude that the BIA did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Masalmeh’s motion for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, we deny Masalmeh’s petition for review. 

I.

“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of 

discretion.” Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks omitted). In addressing motions for reconsideration, the 

BIA’s discretion is “very broad.” Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1253 

(11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The BIA abuses its 

discretion when it misapplies the law in reaching its decision.” Ferreira v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240, 1243 (11th Cir. 2013). 

A successful motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law in 

the prior BIA decision and must be supported by pertinent authority. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(6)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). “[A] motion that merely republishes 

the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the 

tribunal no reason to change its mind.” Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329 (internal quotation 

Case: 14-15346 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 2 of 7 
3

marks omitted). Accordingly, we have found that “merely reiterating arguments 

previously presented to the BIA does not constitute specifying errors of fact or law 

as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

II.

On appeal, Masalmeh argues that the BIA failed to sufficiently address 

several of his arguments on reconsideration. Specifically, he asserts that, in 

dismissing his appeal, the BIA: (1) erroneously deemed him a citizen of Israel 

based on his counsel’s admission; (2) wrongly identified the primary country of 

removal as Israel and one of the alternate countries of removal as Jordan, despite 

him having no right to reside in either; (3) committed “legal and factual error” in 

failing to sufficiently consider a 1993 U.S. State Department report that he first 

presented on appeal to the BIA as evidence of his past persecution by the Israeli 

Defense Forces (IDF); and (4) failed to sufficiently address his claim that he would 

face persecution by Hamas and Fatah due to his political neutrality. We address 

each argument in turn. 

First, although Masalmeh argues the BIA erred in relying on his counsel’s 

admission that he is an Israeli citizen, he offers no legal support for this position. 

At a hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Masalmeh’s counsel stated, “We 

are going to admit allegations...1and 2 [in the Notice to Appear].” Later, 

Case: 14-15346 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 3 of 7 
4

Maselmeh’s counsel confirmed the admission that Masalmeh was a native and 

citizen of Israel and declined to designate a country of removal.

 The BIA may deem an attorney’s on-record statements valid judicial 

admissions. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization 

Serv., 640 F.2d 1139, 1141 (9th Cir. 1981); Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 368 F. 

App’x 963, 964 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its 

discretion here in deeming Maselmeh’s attorney’s on-record statements valid 

judicial admissions. 

Second, even if the BIA identified the incorrect primary country of removal, 

that error would not affect its conclusion that Masalmeh failed to establish 

eligibility for withholding of removal. If Masalmeh wanted clarification on his 

primary country of removal, he could have filed a motion for clarification of the 

BIA’s decision; however, at this stage, such a motion is unnecessary because, if 

Masalmeh is right, then he will be removed to the West Bank (as opposed to 

Jordan or Israel). Masalmeh concedes that he may travel through Israel and Jordan 

with his current travel documents.

Third, Masalmeh’s argument that the BIA allegedly failed to consider the 

1993 Report in determining whether he was persecuted and tortured by the IDF

does not show an abuse of discretion. In his amended application for withholding 

of removal, Masalmeh stated that he had been harmed, and feared being harmed 

Case: 14-15346 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 4 of 7 
5

again (including torture), by the Jordanian and the Israeli governments due to his 

status as an ethnic Palestinian, and by the Palestinian government due to his 

decision not to support Fatah or Hamas. In support, Masalmeh attached the 1993 

Report to his initial brief before the BIA, and the BIA addressed the 1993 Report 

in his initial appeal. His argument on reconsideration was essentially a reiteration 

of arguments previously presented. Therefore, as stated above, “a motion that 

merely republishes the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first 

place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind.” Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, it is clear from the proceedings 

below that the BIA gave sufficient consideration to Masalmeh’s argument. Cf. Tan 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Where the IJ has given 

reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not 

require that it address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of 

evidence the petitioner presented.” (internal quotation marks and alteration 

omitted)). Even if Masalmeh is correct that the BIA could have taken 

administrative notice of the report and has taken such notice of reports in the past, 

the argument fails to show that the BIA’s decision not to take such notice 

constituted an error of fact or law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(c); 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(b)(1). 

Case: 14-15346 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 5 of 7 
6

Finally, Masalmeh’s argument concerning his political neutrality also fails to 

show an abuse of discretion because he raised an argument concerning his political 

neutrality in his appeal before the BIA. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 129. In his initial 

brief before the BIA, Masalmeh argued that IJ applied an incorrect legal standard 

in ruling on his political neutrality claim, but the BIA agreed with the IJ. Thus, the 

BIA considered, and rejected, this argument. See id. While the BIA did not 

discuss Masalmeh’s specific argument concerning the legal standard in its 

dismissal of his appeal, it gave reasoned consideration to his political neutrality 

claim and found that the IJ had not erred. Cf. Tan, 446 F.3d at 1374. 

III.

In sum, Masalmeh has failed to show that the BIA abused its “very broad” 

discretion in denying his motion to reconsider because (1) Masalmeh could be 

bound by his counsel’s admission that he was an Israeli citizen; (2) the BIA 

specified alternate countries of removal sufficient to facilitate relocation if Israel, 

the primary country of removal, does not permit him to stay; (3) the BIA 

sufficiently considered the 1993 report in Masalmeh’s appeal to the BIA; and 

(4) Masalmeh had previously raised his argument concerning his political 

neutrality. See Scheerer, 513 F.3d at 1253; Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. Therefore, 

upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we deny 

Maselmeh’s petition for review.

Case: 14-15346 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 6 of 7 
7

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 14-15346 Date Filed: 10/07/2015 Page: 7 of 7