Opinion ID: 3036801
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The BIA’s June 25, 2007 Order

Text: A motion for reconsideration is a “request that the Board re-examine its decision in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.” In re Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 338 (BIA 2002). To succeed on their petition for review, the petitioners must show that the BIA’s decision denying reconsideration was somehow “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994). They have not made this showing. Their motion for reconsideration is based on their contention that the IJ and the BIA did not consider the ages of the juvenile respondents in determining whether they had been persecuted. The BIA denied the motion because the record made it “clear that the Immigration Judge and the Board gave appropriate consideration to the ages of the minor respondents.” The petitioners assert that the BIA erred by “refusing to recognize agency guidelines that it should have applied a lower standard for determining persecution of a minor.” They acknowledge, however, that the 1998 memorandum from Acting Director of the INS Office of International Affairs 3 (“Weiss Memorandum”) is not controlling, but 3 The memorandum, entitled “Guidelines for Children’s Asylum Claims,” recognizes that “the harm a child fears or has suffered . . . may be relatively less than that of an adult and still qualify as persecution.” See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 680 (9th Cir. 2004) (cited in dissent). 9 argue that this Court should follow some of its sister circuits and find that “age can be a critical factor in the adjudication of asylum claims and may bear heavily on the question of whether an applicant was persecuted.” Liu v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 307, 314 (7th Cir. 2004; see also Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2007); Jorge-Tzoc v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2006). In this case, however, there is no reason for us to hold that the Immigration Court must follow the Weiss Memorandum because the IJ acknowledged the minor petitioners’ status as children,4 and substantial evidence supports the determination that the treatment that the boys endured does not rise to the level of persecution. See Liu, 380 F.3d at 314. Accordingly, the BIA’s denial of the motion for reconsideration was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Tipu, 20 F.3d at 582. For these reasons, and after careful consideration of the record and the parties’ contentions, we will deny the petitions for review. 4 For example, the IJ stated that “the police took inappropriate steps perhaps in investigating through fairly young children in trying to extract information from them.” (A.R. at 38.) 10