Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the C ourthas determined that this opinionshould * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08
- 61082 Su m m ar y Cal endar Z HENGHA O L I U, P et i t i on er v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U . S . A T T O R N E YG E N E RA L , R esp on d en t
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 97 367 597
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P RA D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IAM: * Z h en gh ao L i u , a cit i zen of t h e P eopl e’ s R epu bl i c o f C h in a , petit i on s f or revi ew of

t h e B oard of

I m m i grati o n A p p e a ls’(“ B IA” ) N ovem ber 4, 200 8 order (“ N ov em b er 4th O rd er”), d en yin g L i u ’ s m oti on to recon siderits ea rl i er d en i a lto reo p en L i u ’ s ap p l i ca ti on f or a sy l u m . B eca u se th e B IAdid n ot ab u se it s c o n s id e r a b le d is c r e tio n inth is m a tt e r , w e d e n yL iu ’ s p e tit io n . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Februar y 3, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-61082 Document: 00511020050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 61082

2 I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND L i u entered t h e U n i t ed S t ates il l egally i n 200 3. I n Jan u ary 200 4, L i u f i l ed an ap pl i c at i o n f

o ra s ylum , w i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va l , a nd p r o t e c t i o n und e rt he i m pl em en t i n g regulat i on s o f th e U n i t ed S t ates’adop t i on of t h e C on ven t i on A gainstT ort u re. Th e D epa rt m en tof H om el an d S ecuri t y (“ D H S ” ) com m en ced rem ov a lpr oce ed i n gs ag a i n st L i u i n A p ri l20 0 4 . A n Im m i gr a ti on J u d g e (“ IJ”) con sider edL i u ’ s ap p l i ca ti on a n d D H S ’ s rem ov a lpr oce ed i n g a t t ri a l . T h e IJ den i e d Liu’ s r e que s t e d r e l i e f, f o und t hathe w as no te l i gibl e f o rv o l unt ar y dep art u re, an d ordered that he shou l d be rem ovedto C h i n a. Th e B IAdi sm i ssed L iu ’ s a d m in is tr a tiv e a p p e a l o f th e IJ ’ s o r d e ro n A p r il 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . L i u di d n otf

i l e a petition f

or r evi ew of

t h e B IA ’ s di sm i ssal . R ather, on Ju n e 1 6, 2 00 8, Li u f i l e d am o t i o n t o r e o pe n hi s o r i gi nala ppli c ati o n f o ra s ylum w ith th e B IA , cla im in ga s y lu m u n d e ran e w th e o r y . L iu a lle g e dth a t, w h ile in D H S c us t o dy , he w as ba pt i z e d as a Chri s t i an. H e s ubs e que nt ly sent r el i gi o us m a te r ia ls , in c lu d in gaco p yo f h is b a p tis m c e r tific a te , t o r e la tiv e s in C h in a . L iu al so s u bm i t t ed p ap ers pu rport i n g t o show th at l ocalC h i n ese of f i ci al s l earn ed of L i u ’ s m ai l i n gs an d in f orm ed h i s m ot h er th at he m u streportt o C h i n ese au t h orit i es f

or questi on i n g or be s u bj ectt o arres t . Liu clai m ed these new d e v e lo p m e n ts e s ta b lis h e daw e ll-fo u n d e dfe a ro f p e r s e c u tio n o n t h e b a s is o f h is r e lig io u s b e lie fs . I n a n A u g u s t2 0 , 2 0 0 8 o r d e r(“A u g u s t2 0 t h O r d e r” ), th e B IAr eje c t e dL iu ’s m ot i on t o reopen a s un t i m ely. Th e B IAf ou n d that Liu’ s m ot i on t o reopen d i d n ot fal lw i t h i n t h e ex c e pti o n f o rc hang ed coun t ry conditi on s because L i u ’ s c on versi on a m ou n tedto a ch a n ge i n pe rson a lcircu m stan ces. L i u ’ s su p p ortingdo cu m en ts di d no tpe r s uad e t he BIA, w hi c h no t e d e r r o r s o f a ut he nt i c at i on and q ue s t i o ns c o n c e r n in go r ig in a lity . L i u res pon dedt o t h e A u gu st2 0th O rder w i t h tw o m ot i on s: a p et i t i on f or revi ew , f

i l ed w i t h t h i s C ou rton S eptem ber 29, 200 8, an d a m ot i on t o rec on si der, Case: 08-61082 Document: 00511020050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 61082

3 f i l ed w i t h the B IAon S eptem ber 1 8, 2 009 . W e rej ect ed L i u ’ s pet i t i on f or r evi ew a s u n tim e lyin a D ece m b er 2 2 , 20 0 8 ord er. T h e B IAde n i edL i u ’ s m oti on to re co n si der i n it s N ovem ber 4th O rder, f i n di n g t h at Li u of

fered no n ew or previ ou sly una vail able evi den ce, an d that Liu ha d fai l ed to dem on st rat e an err or of fac tor l aw i n t he B IA ’ s A ugust 20t h O r der . Li u pet i t i ons us f orr evi ew of

t hat d e n ia l. II. A N A L Y S IS Inh i s p eti ti on , L i u ask s u s to r e v ie w t h e B IA ’ s d en i a lof h i s m oti on to r e o pe n a s w e l la s it s de ni alo f hi s m o t i o n to rec o ns i de r . The G o ve r nm e nt con ten d s tha t L i u i m p rop erly see k s coll a tera lrev i ew of th e B IA ’ s A u gu st 20 th O r de r . W e a gr e e t hatapa r t y m ayno tc o l l at e r ally at t ack a BI A r ul i ng i n a p e tit io n fo rre v ie w o f am o tio n to re c o n s id e r . S ee G u ervara v. G on zales , 450 F. 3d 173 , 176 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) (h ol di n g t h at D H S ’ s m o tion t o rec on si der w as a coll a tera lat ta c k o n a B IAord er). W e a l so a gr ee tha t L i u w ron gly a sk s u s to r e v ie w th e B IA ’ s A u g u s t 2 0 th O r d e rd e n y in gh is m o tio n to re o p e n . W e pr evi ous ly hel d t hatLi u’ s m ot i on toreo pen the A ugust20th O r derw as unt i m e ly. Des pit e t hi s r ul i ng, Li u f o c us e s hi s ar gum e nt s on all e ge d er r o r s i n t he B IA ’ s A u gu st20th O rder, argu i n g t h at th e B IAim properl y rej ect ed L i u ’ s of fered evi den ce as u n au t h en t i cat ed and u n ori gi n al . L i u ’ s at t em pt t o soli citour revi ew of t h e A u gu st 20th O rder cl early fal l s ou t si de of t h e t h i rt y- da ysta t u t ory l i m i t ati on p rovi dedb y 8 U . S . C . § 1252 (b) ( 1) , an d w e t h eref ore l ack j u ri sdi ct i on to co n s id e rL iu ’ s a r g u m e n ts a g a in s t t h e B IA ’ s A u g u s t 2 0 th O r d e r . Cf. G u irg u is v . I NS , 9 93 F. 2d508 , 509 ( 5th C i r . 199 3) (ho l di ng t hatt he “t i m e li m i tf o rf i l i ng ap e tit io n fo rre v ie w o f afin a l o r d e ro f d e p o r ta tio n ” is ju r is d ic tio n a l). W e t h eref ore c on st rai n our consi derati on of L i u ’ s pet i t i on t o h i s argu m en t s agai n st th e B IA ’ s N o v e m b e r4 th O r d e rd e n y in gh is m o tio n fo rre c o n s id e r a tio n . W e re v ie w th e B IA ’ s d e n ia l o f L iu ’ s m o tio n to re c o n s id e ru n d e rah ig h ly d eferen ti a lab u se o f d i scre ti on stan d a rd . 8 C . F . R . § 10 0 3 . 2 (a) (“T h e dec i sionto Case: 08-61082 Document: 00511020050 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 61082

4 gr anto rde ny a m o t i on to r e o pe n o rr e c o ns i de ri s w i t hi n t he di s c r e t i o n o f t he B o a r d. . . .”); Zh ao v. G on zales , 404 F. 3d 295, 301 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) (r evi ew i ng a m o t io n to r e c o n s id e rfo ra b u s e o f d is c r e t io n ). “[W ]e w il ln o td is t u rb th e B IA ’s di s c r e t i o n so l o ng as it‘i s no tc ap r i c i o us , r ac i ally i nvi di o us , ut t e r ly w i t ho ut f ou n da t i on i n t h e evi den ce, or ot h erw i se so i rrat i on al t h at iti s arbit rary rat h er than the resu l t of

an y p erce p tib l e ra ti on a lap p roa ch . ’” Ch am bers v. Mu ka sey , 520 F. 3d 445, 448 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng S i ngh v. G on zales , 4 3 6 F . 3 d48 4 , 48 7 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 )). L i u fa i l s to sp ecif

y a n y e rrors of l a w or fact i nthe B IA ’ s A u gu st 20 th O r d e r . S ee8 U .S .C . § 12 2 9 a (c) (6)( C ) (requ i ri n g th a t a m oti on to recon siderto

“ spe c if y the err or s of

l aw orfac ti n t he pr evi ous or der” ) ; 8 C. F. R . § 1003. 2(b) ( 1) ( sam e) . R ather, L i u off ers exp l an ati on s f

or hi s fai l u re t o subm i tau t h en t i cat ed or or i gi n alevi den ce i n hi s or i gi n alm ot i on t o r e o p e n . L i u ’ s prof fered exp l an ati on s do no t e sta bl i sh that th e B IAabu sed i t s c on si derab l e di scr et i on w h e n it d e n ie dh is m o tio n to re c o n s id e r . I I I . C ONC L US I ON For t he f

or ego i ng r eas ons , w e de ny Li u’ sp e titi on t o r evi ew t he B IA ’ s deni al o f h is m o tio n to re c o n s id e r . D E N IE D . Case: 08-61082 Document: 00511020050 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/03/2010