FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAR 20, 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- 15078 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 79- 509- 122 N E L S O N V A S Q U E Z , D I A N A C A R O L I N A R I C A U T E V A S Q U E Z , J E F F E R S O N R I C A U T E V A S Q U E Z , L U Z D A R Y R I C A U T E - R O D R I Q U E Z , 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

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

_________________________ ( M ar c h 20, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:In 2002, President Bush signe d into law the Homeland Security Act, which created a new 1 Depa rtment of Homela

nd Security

and abolished theI

NS, transferring its responsibilit ies to the new depar tment. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135.

2 N el son V as qu ez , on behal f of hi m se l f, hi s w i fe L uz, and h i s c hi l dren J e f f e r s on a nd D i a na , pe t i t i ons thi s c our tf orr e vi e w of

the de c i s i on by the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de ri t s a f f i rm a nc e of th e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) o r d e ro f r e mo v a l a n d d e n i a l o f: a s y l u m, w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al , an d rel i ef u n d er th e U n i t ed N at i o n s C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T o r tu r e ( “C A T ” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e a f

f irm . I . Ba c k g r o und V as qu ez , hi s w i fe , and h i s c hi l dren, al l nat i ves and ci t i ze ns of C ol om bi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed S t at es i n 2 00 0 o n i m m i grantvi sa s, and they a l l re m ai ned be y ond the i rvi s a s ’ e xpi r a t i on pe r i ods . I n J ul y 2001, V a s que z f i l e d a n appl i c a t i on f o ra s y l u m, w i th h o l d i n g o f r e mo v a l , a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T w i th th e I N S, 1 a l l e gi ng tha the ha d be e n pe r s e c ut e d by the R e vol ut i ona ry A rm e d F or c e s of C o lo m b ia( “F A R C ” ) b a s e d o n h is p o litic a l o p in io n a n d h is r e f u s a l to c o o p e r a te . A n ap p lic a tio n p e rta in in g to V a s q u e z ’s w if e a n d tw o c h ild r e n w a s f ile d in N o v em b er2 0 0 1 , an d th is ap p li ca ti o n w as later c o n so li d ated w ith V as q u ez ’s appl i ca t i on . T he IN S re fe rr ed the consol i dat ed appl i ca t i on t o an IJ a nd i ss ued N o tic e s to A p p e a rto V a s q u e z a n d h is f a m ily , c h a r g in g th e m w ith r e m o v ab ility un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 7(a) (1)( B ).3

A t ah e a r in g b e f

o r e th e I J , V a s q u e z a n d h is f a m ily c o n c e d e d r e m o v ab ility . I n ade c i s i on i s s ue d on J a nua ry 31, 2005, the I J de ni e d r e l i e f , f i ndi ng the a s y l um ap p lic a tio n u n tim e ly a n d c o n c lu d in g th a t V a s q u e z ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le . T he I J f ur the rrul e d tha te ve n i f V a s que z w e r e t o be be l i e ve d, hi s t e s t i m ony di d not w a rr a ntthe r e l i e f

s ought . O n F e brua ry 15, 2005, V a s que z s ubm i tt e d anot i c e of ap p e a l th r o u g h h is a tto rn e y , L o u r d e s R o d r ig u e z . I n N o v e m b e r2 0 0 5 , V a s q u e z r e p la c e dh is a tto rn e y , R o d r ig u e z , w ith D a v id S t ol l er . In thatsa m e m on th, S t ol l erfi l ed a N ot i ce of E ntryof A pp earance a s A tt orne y orR e pr e s e nt a t i ve B e f or e the B I A ( F orm E O I R - 27) , R odr i gue z f i l e d a m ot i on t o w i thd raw , and S t ol l erfi l ed a F re edom of Inform at i on A ct(“ F O IA ”) r e que s ts e e ki ng V a s que z ’ s f i l e . O n J a nua ry 24, 2006, the B I A i s s ue d i t s br i e f i ng s c he dul e a nd s e nti tt o R odr i gue z , V a s que z ’ s the n- f orm era tt orne y , r e qui r i ng V as q u ez to su b m ita b rief b y F eb ru ar y 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 . S to ll erd idn o t rec eiv e th e B IA ’s r e s pons e t o hi s F O I A r e que s tunt i l M a r c h 2006, a tw hi c h t i m e he not i c e d tha tthe F o rm E O I R - 2 7 h e h a d s u b m itte d in N o v e m b e r2 0 0 5 w a s n o t in V a s q u e z ’s f ile . A f t e rc ons ul t i ng w i th the B I A a nd R odr i gue z , S t ol l e rde t e rm i ne d tha tthe br i e f i ng sc hedu l e had been sentt o R od ri gu ez and thatthe bri ef i ng deadl i ne had p as se d w i tho utei ther V as qu ez orth e G o v e rn m e n t h a v in g f ile d ab r ie f

. A s ar e s u lt, V a s que z m ot i one d the B I A t o a c c e pthi s ( now l a t e ) br i e f , a nd on A pr i l 10, 2006, the B I A de ni e d thi s m ot i on. O n M a y 4, 2006, V a s que z f i l e d am ot i on t o r e s e tthe4

br i e f i ng s c he dul e , a nd i n a n or de ri s s ue d on M a y 24, 2006, the B I A de ni e d the m o tio n o n th e g r o u n d s th a t n e ith e rp a r ty h a d p r e s e n te d s u f f ic ie n t r e a s o n s w h y it shou l d acc eptun t i m el y bri ef s. In thatsa m e order, the B IA af fi rm ed the IJ ’ s deni al of r e l i e f , e xpl i c i t l y a gr e e i ng w i th the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on a nd concl ud i ng thatV as qu ez fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e c hang ed or extra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x c u s in g th e u n tim e ly f ilin g o f h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . V a s q u e z d id notpe t i t i on thi s c ourtf

orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s M a y 24, 2006 de c i s i on. O n J une 21, 2006, V a s que z m ot i one d the B I A t o r e c ons i de ri t s M a y 24, 2 0 0 6 d e c is io n , a r g u in g th a t, in te ra lia , the IJerre d i n i t s c on cl usi on s, the B IA erre d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o f i l e a n unt i m e l y br i e f

, a nd he ha d ne w e vi de nc e t o pr e s e nt upon r e c ons i de r a t i on. T he B I A de ni e d the m ot i on, c onc l udi ng tha tthe m ot i on f a i l e d “ t o i de nt i f

y a ny part i c ul a re rr or s of l a w orf a c ti n [ the B I A ’ s ] pr e vi ous deci si on , ” but , i nst ea d m er el y a ss ert ed that“ re j ec t i on of [V as qu ez ’ s] un t i m el y bri ef and affi rm ance of the [I J’ s] deci si on w as i ncorrec t . ” T he B IA al so deni ed V as qu ez ’ s r equestt o reopen the ca se du e t o n ew evi dence on the grou nd s that V a s que z ha d nots ubm i tt e d a ny ne w e vi de nc e a s pa r tof hi s m ot i on. V a s que z now pe t i t i ons thi s c ourtf

orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s J une 21, 2006 de c i s i on. I I . D i s c u s s i on V a s q u e z a r g u e s th a t th 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 is m o tio n to re consi der because he i dent i fi ed errors of l aw and facti n h i s m ot i on , the B IA fa i l edWe do n ot add re ss V a sq ue z’sdu eproc e ss a

rgument b e c a

us ehefaile d toe xha

us t hi s 2 administrative remedies by raisingthis iss ue bef ore theBIA. Fernande z-Ber nal v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 257 F.3d 1304, 1317 n.13 ( 11th Cir. 200 1 ). An d b ec ause Vasquez does not challeng e the B IA’s denial of hismot io n to reopen b a se d o n n ew evidenc e , h eha s a ba ndon e d this i ssuea s w e ll. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2005).

5 t o con si der thatS t ol l erhad b ee n ret ai ned as c ou nsel and h ad t i m el y f i l ed F orm E O I R - 2 7 w ith th e B I A , a n d h e h a s b e e n d e n ie d d u e p r o c e s s b y th e B I A ’s f a ilu r e to al l ow hi m t o app ea l the IJ ’ s deni al of re l i ef . 2 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

orabus e of d is c r e tio n . A s s a ’a d v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) .

“ O urr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve di s c r e t i on a nd w he the rthe m a tt e rof e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a ry or capri ci ou s. ” A bd i v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 43 0 F . 3d 11 48 , 11 49 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). U nde r8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2, am ot i on t o r e c ons i de raB I A de c i s i on m us tbe f i l e d w i thi n thi rty da y s of the de c i s i on a nd m us t“ s t a t e the r e a s ons f orthe m ot i on by s pe c i f y i ng the e rr or s of

f a c torl a w i n the pr i orB oa r d de c i s i on a nd s ha l l be s u p p o r te d b y p e rtin e n t au th o r ity .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) . H e r e , V a s q u e z ’s m o tio n f a ile d to id e n tif

y e rr o r s o f

f a c t o rla w , f

a ile d to c ite s uppor t i ng author i ty , a nd f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe I J e rr e d i n f i ndi ng the a s y l um appl i c a t i on unt i m e l y ortha thi s t e s t i m ony w a s i nc r e di bl e . W e the r e f or e c onc l ude th a t th e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g V a s q u e z ’s m o tio n to6

re consi der. I I I . C on c l u s i on F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e D E N Y V a s que z ’ s pe t i t i on a nd A F F I R M the B I A.