FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JULY 13, 2006 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. 05- 16416 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 130- 093 E D W I N O R L A N D O H E RN A N D E Z , P e titio n e r , 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

aD 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

_________________________ ( Ju l y 13, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E d wi n Or l a n d o He rn a n d e z , th r o u g h c o u n s e l , p e t i t i o n s u s f o rr e v i e w o f

two or de r s of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) . T he f i r s tor de ra f

f i rm e d the Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) re m ov al order, and the se cond order deni ed H e rn a n d e z ’s m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . W e D I S M I S S H e rn a n d e z ’s p e titio n w ith r e g a r d to th e f

ir s t o r d e rb e c au s e w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w it, a n d w e D E N Y h is pe t i t i on w i th r e ga r d hi s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n 2 5 M ar ch 20 03 , H ernand ez , a c i t i ze n o f C ol om bi a, arri ved i n the U ni t ed S t at es and app l i ed for a dm i ss i on un der the V i saW ai ver P rogram . H ernand ez l at er fi l ed an appl i ca t i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef un der the U ni t e d 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 or D e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) , 8 C . F . R . § 208. 16 e ts e q. , c l a i m i ng pe r s e c ut i on ba s e d on hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on. I n hi s appl i c a t i on, he c l a i m e d tha the w a s am e m be rof

the J uve ni l e G r oup of

the L i be r a l P a r ty , a nd f e a r e d t or tur e a nd d e a th a t th e h a n d s o f

th e p a r a m ilita ry if

h e r e tu rn e d to C o lo m b ia . H e rn a n d e z f

u rth e re x p la in e d th a t, s h o r tly a f te rc o m p le tin g h ig h s c h o o l in B og ot á, he befr i ended a m an by the nam e of J ai ro P ar do , w i th w ho m he pl ay ed pool on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons . P a r do e xpr e s s e d i nt e r e s ti n w ha tH e rna nde z w a s doi ng fo r th e L i b eral P arty an d , l at er, rev eal ed th ath e w as a m em b er o f th e C o m m u n i st pa r ty a nd the A ut o D e f

e ns e , apa r a m i l i t a ry gr oup, a nd tha the w a s i n c ha r ge of3

di stri bu t i ng fl ye rs i n the south si de of B og ot á. O n o ne occas i on , P ar do show ed H ernand ez a bun dl e of e nv el op es and t ol d h i m thatthe envel op es cont ai ned

“ m e s s a ge s di r e c t e d by the P a r a m i l i t a ry a i m e d a tbus i ne s s e s a nd pe r s ons of the C o m m u n ity.” A d m in istrativ e R ec o rd (“A R ”) at 1 1 1 . H e r eq u es ted H er n an d ez ’s a s s i s t a nc e i n di s tr i but i ng the e nve l ope s , a nd H e rna nde z r e f us e d. P a r do the n, di spl ay i ng a gun , threa t ened t o k i l l H ernand ez i f he di d n otcom pl y. H ernand ez grabbed the envel op es , bu tnever di stri bu t ed them . H i s m other t ol d h i m t o report the i nc i de ntt o the pol i c e , but , i n l i ghtof the thr e a t , he de c i de d nott o not i f y the au th o r itie s . H e th e n w e n t to s ta y a t h is au n t’s h o u s e in P e r e ir ato h id e f r o m P a r d o . A fe w days l at er , ho w ever , P ar do foun d H ernand ez i n P er ei ra , and threa t ened that th e p a r a m ilita ry w o u ld k ill h im , h is m o th e r , a n d h is au n t if h e d id n o t r e tu rn to B og ot á. T hi s threa tprom pt ed H ernand ez t o com e t o the U ni t ed S t at es t o see k p r o te c tio n . I n s upportof

hi s appl i c a t i on, H e rna nde z f i l e d va r i ous U . S . D e pa r tm e ntof S ta te s ta tu s r e p o rts r e g a r d in g h u m a n r ig h ts p r a c tic e s in C o lo m b ia . T h e r e p o r ts i nd i ca t ed thatthe ac t i vi t i es of param i l i t ary group s are oft en do ne w i th the al l eged co m p l i ci ty o f, o r i n co l l ab o rat i o n w i th , m em b ers o f th e p u b l i c secu ri ty fo rces, m ilita ry , o rp o lic e . A tahe a r i ng i n J ul y 2003, H e rna nde z ’ s a tt orne y i ndi c a t e d t o the I J tha ts he had j ustre ce i ved som e i m po rt antdo cum ent s i n the ca se , w hi ch i ncl ud ed l ett er s4

i ndi c a t i ng tha tH e rna nde z ’ s m othe rha d be e n be a t e n a nd hos pi t a l i z e d. T he he a r i ng w as po stpo ned u nt i l the do cum ent s c ou l d b e transl at ed. W hen the heari ng re sum ed i n O c t obe rof

2003, H e rna nde z t e s t i f i e d tha tP a r do w a nt e d hi m t o j oi n the C o m m u n is t I d e o lo g is ts , w h ic h w a s a s s o c ia te d w ith ap a r a m ilita ry g r o u p in C ol om bi a . H e s t a t e d, how e ve r , tha tP a r do di d notgi ve hi m as pe c i f i c na m e of

the p a r a m ilita ry g r o u p to w h ic h h e b e lo n g e d . H e a d m itte d th a t P a r d o w a s th e o n ly pers on w i th w ho m he had troub l e i n C ol om bi a and thathe w as no taw ar e of w hat the fl i er s s ai d b ec ause he di d n otop en the se al ed envel op es . H e f urther a dm i tt ed thathe di d n otre po rtP ar do ’ s threa tt o the po l i ce . H ernand ez further t es t i fi ed that h i s m o th er rem ai n ed i n C o l o m b i a, w h ere P ard o co n t i n u ed t o th reat en h er an d ask ab o u t H e rn a n d e z ’s w h e r e ab o u ts , a n d h e b e lie v e d th a t th e p a r a m ilita ry g r o u p w o u ld k ill h im if

h e r e tu rn e d . I n a n or a l de c i s i on, the I J , a l though pr e vi ous l y f i ndi ng H e rna nde z t o be c r e di bl e a tthe he a r i ng de ni e d H e rna nde z ’ s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of rem o v al , an d rel i ef u n d er th e C A T . T h e IJ co m m en t ed th atth i s case w as “ fran k l y, w a y o u t o f

th e b a ll p a rkw ith r e g a r d to b e in g ab le to e s tab lis h a n y c o n n e c tio n a t a ll be tw e e n the f

a c t s . ” I d. a t62. T he I J f ound tha tP a r do’ s thr e a tdi d notha ve

“ a ny thi ng t o do w i th one of the f i ve e num e r a t e d c a t e gor i e s f ound [ i n] the de f

i ni t i on o f r e f u g e e ,” a n d , b e c au s e n o o n e in th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s e v e rn o tif ie d o f th e th r e a t, H ernand ez fa i l ed t o sho w thatanybod y a ss oci at ed w i th the go vernm entei therIn support of his argument, Her nandez listed several documents that he had ref erred to at 1 the July 2003 hearing, na

mely, a statement from h i s m o th er that she had be en thre atene d and kidnapped by

the paramilitary

forc es, and a

medical c ertification from a hospital showingthat she had been beaten. AR at 22. Thesedocuments, however, a ppear nowhere in th e rec ord. (See g enerally id. Her nandez’s brie f to the B IA mere ly stated the facts and the la w, but did not articulate any 2 arguments. See id. at 21-35. 5 pa r t i c i pa t e d i n, ora c qui e s c e d t o, P a r do’ s thr e a t . I d. a t63. T he I J c om m e nt e d,

“ T he c a s e i s nots pe c i f

i c , i t ’ s notde t a i l e d, a nd be c aus e of the l a c k of

gove rnm e nt i nvol ve m e nt , i tw oul d be l e ga l l y uns ui t abl e a s w e l l . ” I d. H e rna nde z appe a l e d t o the B I A , r e que s t i ng r e ve r s a l of the I J ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . H e s ubm i tt e d a bri ef , i n w hi ch he argued thatthe IJfa i l ed t o con si der a l l of the pert i nentevi dence 1 a n d s h o u ld h a v e g r a n te d h im a s y lu m b e c au s e h e s u b m itte d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to m e e thi s bur de n of

pr oof . O n 15 A ugus t2005, the B I A a f f i rm e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on, 2 f i ndi ng tha tthe I J c orr e c t l y c onc l ude d tha tH e rna nde z f a i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n of proo f f or as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and p rot ec t i on un der the C A T . F urther, the B IA no t ed that , on appeal , H ernand ez m er el y r es t at ed hi s c l ai m , “ w hi ch w as care ful l y c on si dere d and prop er l y a dj ud i ca t ed by the Im m i grat i on Judg e. ” I d. at 18.In his motion for reconsideration, Her nandez di d not claim that the BIA er red by denying 3 his claim for a sylum or withholding or removal. See id. at 12. This complaint is not contained any where in the re cord. Seeg enerally id. 4 6 O n 13 S e pt e m be r2005, H e rna nde z f i l e d am ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on, c l a i mi n g th a tth e I J a n d th e BI A e rr e d b y d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c a t i o n u n d e rth e CAT. 3 F o r th e fi rstt i m e, H ern an d ez cl ai m ed th ath e h ad fi l ed a cri m i n al co m p l ai n tag ai n st P a r do, thr ough pr oxy , t o de nounc e a c t s c a rr i e d outa ga i ns thi s m othe ra nd aunt w hen “ they f

ai l ed t o l ocat e hi m . ” Id. at11 . H ernand ez cl ai m ed thathe w as 4 e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f

unde rthe C A T be c aus e : ( 1) the author i t i e s w e r e “ w i l l f ul l y bl i nd a n d a c c e p tin g ” o f

th e p a r a m ilita r ie s ’ ille g a l a c ts b y ig n o r in g P a r d o ’s th r e a ts a n d h is a s s au lt o n H e rn a n d e z ’s f a m ily m e m b e r s , a n d th e r e f o r e , th e y a c q u ie s c e d to h is to r tu r e ; ( 2 ) th e I J f

o u n d h im to b e c r e d ib le , a n d th u s , h e s u s ta in e d h is b u r d e n th a t, m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t, h e w o u ld b e s u b je c t to to r tu r e o rd e a th if h e w e r e to r e tu rn to C o lo m b ia ; a n d ( 3 ) h is te s tim o n y th a t, e v e n w h e n h e m o v e d to d if f e r e n t c itie s in C ol om bi a , the pa r a m i l i t a r i e s w e r e “ a l w a y s a thi s he e l s , ” pr ove d tha tm ovi ng t o a di f f e r e ntc i ty w oul d notpr ovi de hi m w i th a“ pr ot e c t i ve s hi e l d” a ga i ns tthe p ar a m ilita r ie s . I d . a t 1 3 - 1 4 . H e f u r th e ra r g u e d th a t th e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t r e p o r ts confi rm ed thatcond i t i on s i n C ol om bi a had w orse ned, and the autho ri t i es there w er e u n w illin g o rin c ap ab le to p r e v e n t th e p a r a m ilita r ie s ’ c r im in a l a c tiv itie s . A dd i t i on al l y, H ernand ez cl ai m ed thatthe B IA erre d b y i ss ui ng a bl anket7

c onf i rm a t i on of

the I J ’ s or de r , w i thouta n i nde pe nde nta na l y s i s of a l l of the evi dence pres ent ed atthe heari ng . O n 2 5 O ct ob er20 05 , the B IA deni ed H ernand ez ’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , fi nd i ng that , because i tm er el y r ei t er at ed ar gu m ent s a l re ady m ade i n con nect i on w i th h i s app ea l , and thatal re ady had been e v a lu a te d , h e f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e B I A ’s d e c is io n w a s e ith e rf a c tu a lly o rle g a lly e rr o n e o u s o rth a t r e c o n s id e r a tio n w a s w a rr a n te d . T h e r e a r e th r e e is s u e s o n ap p e a l: ( 1 ) w h e th e rw e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth is p e t i t i o n w i th r e g ar d t o th e BI A ’ s d e c i s i o n a f f i rmi n g th e d e n i a l o f

a s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd C A T r e l i e f ; ( 2) w he the rthe B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n f a i l i ng t o pr ovi de ade t a i l e d e xpl a na t i on i n a f f i rm i ng the I J ’ s or de ra nd de ny i ng H e rn a n d e z ’s m o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n ; a n d( 3 ) w h e th e rth e B I A ab u s e d its di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng H ernand ez ’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on as t o h i s r el i ef un der CAT. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . J ur i s di c t i on O ve rP e t i t i on B y s t atut e, an al i en se eki ng re vi ew of a f i nal order of the B IA m ustfi l e a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w w i th i n th i rty d a y s o f th e i s s u a n c e o f

th e f i n a l o r d e r . 8 U . S. C. § 1252( b) ( 1) . A n or de rof r e m ova l be c om e s f

i na l upon, i nt e ra l i a , the di s m i s s a l of a n appe a l by the B I A . S e e 8 C . F . R . § 1241. 1( a ) . “ [ T ] he s t a tut ory l i m i tf orf i l i ng a p e titio n f o rr e v ie w in a n im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g is ‘m a n d a to ry a n d ju r is d ic tio n a l,’8

[ a n d , th e r e f

o r e ,] it is n o t s u b

je c t to e q u itab le to llin g .” D a k a n e v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 9 9 F. 3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 2 - 7 3 n . 3 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( q u o t i n g St o n e v . I N S, 51 4 U . S . 38 6, 40 5, 11 5 S . C t . 15 37 , 15 49 (199 5)). T he fi nal i ty of are m ov al order i s nota f f e c t e d by the f

i l i ng of am ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . S t one , 514 U . S . a t405, 115 S . C t. a t 1 5 4 9 . I n th i s c a s e , th e B I A i s s u e d i t s f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l o n 1 5 Au g u s t2 0 0 5 , AR a t 1 8 , w h e n it a f

f irm e d th e I J ’s d e c is io n , a n d H e rn a n d e z f ile d am o tio n to r e c ons i de ron 13 S e pt e m be r2005, i d. a t9. T hi s f i l i ng di d nott ol l the de a dl i ne f or f ilin g h is p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w w ith o u rc o u r t. S e e S to n e , 5 1 4 U .S . a t 4 0 5 , 1 1 5 S . C t. a t 1 5 4 9 . H e rn a n d e z d id n o t f ile h is p e titio n w ith o u rc o u r t u n til 2 1 N o v e m b e r2 0 0 5 . S ee P et i t i on for R evi ew . B ec ause H ernand ez di d n otfi l e hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew b e f o r e th e th irty - d a y d e a d lin e p r e s c r ib e d b y th e I N A , w e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of

the I J ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s r e que s t s f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l, a n d r e lie f

u n d e rth e C A T . S e e D a k a n e , 3 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 2 n .3 . A c c or di ngl y , ourj ur i s di c t i on i s l i m i t e d t o r e vi e w i ng the B I A ’ s 25 O c t obe r2005 de c i s i on, w hi c h de ni e d H e rna nde z ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. B . W hether the B IA H ad T o P rovi de a D et ai l ed E xp l anat i on i n It s O rder s N e xt , H e rna nde z a r gue s tha tthe B I A ’ s c onf i rm a t i on of

the I J ’ s de c i s i on a nd i t s deni al of hi s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on w er e notconsi st entw i th i t s s t atut ory d u ty to r e n d e rar e a s o n e d a n d in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t. H e rn an d e z a s s e r ts th a t,9

b e c au s e th e B I A ’s ju d g m e n t m e r e ly a f f irm e d th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f

r e m e d y , w ith little e x p la n a tio n a n d w ith o u t r e f e rr in g to a n y o f

th e e v id e n c e c o n ta in e d in th e r e c o r d , it i s i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e rm i n e o n wh a tg r o u n d s th e B I A a g r e e d wi th th e I J . As p r e v io u s ly s ta te d , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s in itia l o r d e ra n d w ill onl y a ddr e s s hi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w w i th r e ga r d t o hi s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on f

ora n abus e of di sc re t i on . A ss a’ ad v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 33 2 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 40 -41 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ), c e r t . de ni e d, 543 U . S . 917, 125 S . C t . 38 ( 2004) . T he B I A abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w hen i tre ac hes i t s dec i si on “ i n an arbi traryor i rr at i on al m anner. ” G om ez -G om ez v. I N S , 681 F . 2d 1347, 1349 ( 11th C i r . 1349) ; s e e a l s o M i c ke vi c i ut e v. I N S , 327 F . 3d 1159, 1162 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha t“ [ t ] he B I A abus e s i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i t s de c i s i on pr ovi de s no r a t i ona l e xpl a na t i on, i ne xpl i c abl y de pa r t s f r om e s t abl i s he d pol i c i e s , i s de voi d of a ny r e a s oni ng, orc ont a i ns onl y s um m a ry or concl usory s t at em ent s” (quo t at i on s om i tt ed)) . F u r th e rm o r e , th e B I A m a y a f f irm , w ith o u t o p in io n , th e d e c is io n o f th e I J if

“ [t ] he [B IA ] i s s at i sf

i ed, fr om a r evi ew of the re cord, . . . thatthe appeal l ac ks an a r guabl e ba s i s i n f

a c tori n l a w . ” 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 1( d) ( 2) ( i ) ( D ) . “ [ M ] e a ni ngf ul r e vi e w of

the I N S ' s r e m ovabi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on i s notpr e c l ude d by the br e vi ty of th e B I A ’s s u m m a ry a f

f irm a n c e d e c is io n b e c au s e a n ap p e lla te c o u r t w ill c o n tin u e to have the IJ ' s dec i si on and the re cord up on w hi ch i ti s bas ed avai l abl e f or re vi ew . ”10

M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1289 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot a t i ons o m itte d ) . M o r e o v e r , th e B I A ’s a f f irm a n c e w ith o u t a n o p in io n d o e s n o t d e m o n s tr a te tha tthe B I A di d notr e vi e w the i ndi vi dua l f a c t s of ape t i t i one r ’ s c a s e . L ony e m v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 35 2 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 42 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( per c uri am ). H er e, w e have the deci si on of the IJand the re cord on appeal t o revi ew a d e q u a te ly w h e th e rth e B I A ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g H e rn a n d e z ’s m o tio n to r e c ons i de r . A s s uc h, w e c onc l ude tha tthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by fa il in g to p ro v id e ad etailed ex p lan atio n o f its d ec isio n d en yin g H er n an d ez ’s m o tio n . C . R e l i e f

u n d e rC AT F i na l l y , H e rna nde z a r gue s tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n c onf i rm i ng the I J ’ s de ni a l of r e m e d i e s u n d e rC AT . He a r g u e s th a th e wa s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f u n d e rth e C AT b e c au s e ( 1 ) th e au th o r itie s a c q u ie s c e d to th e p a r a m ilita r ie s ’ c o n d u c t b y w illf u lly i gnor i ng a nd a c c e pt i ng the i ri l l e ga l thr e a t s a ga i ns tH e rna nde z a nd the i ra s s aul tupon hi s f am i l y; (2) the IJfoun d h i m t o b e c re di bl e, and thu s, he sust ai ned h i s burden th a t, m o r e lik e ly th a n n o t, h e w o u ld b e s u b je c t to to r tu r e o rd e a th if h e w e r e to r e tu rn to C o lo m b ia ; a n d ( 3 ) h is te s tim o n y p r o v e d th a t m o v in g h im to ad if f e r e n t c ity w ou l d n otprov i de hi m w i th p rot ec t i on fr om the parami l i t ar i es . H e f urther a rgues thatthe S t at e D epartm entre po rt s c on fi rm ed thatcond i t i on s i n C ol om bi a had w or s e ne d, a nd the author i t i e s the r e w e r e unw i l l i ng ori nc apabl e t o pr e ve ntthe11

p ar a m ilita r ie s ’ c r im in a l a c tiv itie s . O u rr e v ie w o f th is a r g u m e n t, o n c e a g a in , is l i m i t e d t o the de ni a l of

H e rna nde z ’ s m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on. A ft erthe B IA has a ff

i rm ed an IJ ’ s orderof re m ov al , the al i en m ayse ek re consi dera t i on on the grou nd thatthe B IA has m ade al egal or fa ctual error. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 a(c)(6 ); 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (b )(1 ). A m o t i o n fo r reco n si d erat i o n m u st s pe c i f y the e rr or s of

l a w orf a c ti n the pr e vi ous or de ra nd be s uppor t e d by pe r t i ne nt author i ty . 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 6) ( C ) . “ A m ot i on tha tm e r e l y r e publ i s he s the re as on s thathad fai l ed t o con vi nce the tri bu nal i n the fi rs tpl ac e gi ves the tri bu nal no re as on t o chang e i t s m i nd . ” A hm ed v. A shcr oft , 38 8 F . 3d 24 7, 24 9 (7th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o tin g th a t am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r“is ar e q u e s t th a t th e [ B I A ] r e e x a m in e its deci si on i n l i gh tof addi t i on al l egal ar gu m ent s, a c hang e of l aw , or perhaps an ar gu m entor as pectof the ca se w hi ch w as ov er l oo ked” (quo t at i on s om i tt ed)) . A s an i ni t i al m att er , court s dec i de a pet i t i on for r evi ew on l y on the evi dence c ont a i ne d i n the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e c or d. S e e 8 U . S . C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( A ) . A l though, H ernand ez re fe rr ed t o fac t s i n h i s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , and o n app ea l , that w ou l d app ear t o sup po rthi s C A T cl ai m , nam el y, thathi s m other a nd auntw er e phy s i c a l l y a s s aul t e d by the pa r a m i l i t a r i e s , a nd tha the e ve ntua l l y f i l e d ac om pl a i nt t o de nounc e the pa r a m i l i t a r i e s ’ a c t s , thi s e vi de nc e i s notc ont a i ne d i n the r e c or d, a n d th u s , w e c a n n o t c o n s id e rit.12

I n r e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d H e rna nde z ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on be c aus e he di d notpr e s e nt pers uasi ve evi dence or ar gu m entthatthe B IA had com m i tt ed an err or of l aw or fa ct i n d enyi ng hi s pet i t i on for r el i ef un der the C A T . T he IJdet erm i ned thatH ernand ez w as no tent i t l ed t o rel i ef un der the C A T because H ernand ez fa i l ed t o sho w that a n yb o d y a s s o c ia te d w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t e ith e rp a r tic ip a te d in o ra c q u ie s c e d to P a r do’ s thr e a t . S e e A R a t63. A l though H e rna nde z , f orthe f i r s tt i m e i n hi s m ot i on fo r reco n si d erat i o n , m ad e referen ce t o a co m p l ai n tth ath e m ad e t o th e au th o ri t i es, thi s e vi dence w as no tpartof the fa ctual re cord as i texi st ed w hen the B IA re nd er ed i t s ori gi nal deci si on af

fi rm i ng the IJ ’ s order . S ee i d. at11 . T hu s, thi s e vi dence coul d n otform the basi s of hi s m ot i on t o rec on si der, i n w hi ch H ernand ez m er el y r ea r g u e d th e m e r its o f

h is c la im . B e c au s e H e rn a n d e z f a ile d to p r e s e n t ap p r o p r ia te g r o u n d s f

o rth e B I A to r e - e x a m in e its e a r lie rd e c is io n , th e B I A d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . I I I . CONCL US I ON H e rna nde z pe t i t i one d ourc our tt o r e vi e w tw o or de r s of the B I A . W e do not ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the f i r s t , w hi c h a f

f i rm e d the r e m ova l or de rof the I J , a nd w e c o n clu d e th at th e B IA d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g H er n an d ez ’s m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n . P E T I T I ON DI S MI S S E D I N P AR T , DE NI E D I N P AR T