Opinion ID: 2652564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reconsideration by a Three-Member Panel

Text: Siwe raises a final point of error—in the alternative, should we not be inclined to remand on other bases—regarding the propriety of the BIA’s procedure. In his motion for reconsideration before the BIA, Siwe requested review by a three-member panel, contending that his case satisfies the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). 64 A one-member panel 628 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Marquez-Marquez v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 548, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2006). 63Escudero-Arciniega, 702 F.3d at 785 (“Because we do not have jurisdiction to review factual determinations made pursuant to removal orders based upon an aggravated felony, we dismiss Escudero’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding, and protection under the CAT.”). 64 Siwe argued three-member consideration was appropriate because there was a need to “settle inconsistencies among the rulings of different immigration judges,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(i); “to establish a precedent construing the meaning of laws,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(ii); and to “review a decision by an immigration judge . . . that [was] not in conformity with the law,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6)(iii). 19 Case: 12-60546 Document: 00512524895 Page: 20 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 No. 12-60546 denied the motion; it did not address Siwe’s request. As a result, Siwe argues, the BIA abused its discretion, and he urges us to grant his petition and remand for further proceedings before a three-member panel. We need not reach Siwe’s request for reconsideration by a three-member panel in light of our decision to grant his petition and remand for further proceedings regarding Section 209(b).