Opinion ID: 49300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to reopen or reconsider

Text: The petition for review was timely with respect to the BIA’s order denying Petitioners’ motion to reopen or reconsider, and we have jurisdiction to review that order. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for an abuse of discretion. See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001) (motion to reopen); Assa’ad v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003) (motion to reconsider). “A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reopen shall state “new facts” that would be proven at a new hearing, but “shall not be granted unless it appears to the [BIA] that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not 3 available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing . . . .” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to reconsider because they failed to specify any errors of law or fact in the BIA’s decision. Additionally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioners’ motion to reopen. First, the proffered new evidence, an affidavit from a law school professor, was not previously unavailable. Additionally, the affidavit was not material and would not have changed the results in the case because it did not address the IJ’s findings that Velasquez’s testimony and asylum application were inconsistent and vague. The affidavit merely summarized conditions in Colombia and provided no details regarding the Petitioners’ specific claims. In fact, the professor acknowledged that he could not verify the truth of the Petitioners’ claims.