[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-10704
APRIL 12, 2011
________________________
JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A095-263-189
MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ,
ALBA ROSA CADAVID DE M, a.k.a.
Alba Rosa Cadavid-De Martinez,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(April 12, 2011)
Before MARTIN, FAY and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Colombian natives and citizens Miguel Martinez and his wife, Alba Rosa
Cadavid De M, proceeding pro se, appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA’s) denial of their motion to reconsider a previous BIA order, which in turn
affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision finding them ineligible for asylum
and denying their application for withholding of removal under the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231 and denying relief under the
United Nations Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.18.
“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion.”
Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007). Our review is
limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative
discretion and whether the manner in which it was exercised has been arbitrary or
capricious. See Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir. 2005)
(explaining the abuse of discretion standard in the context of a motion to reopen).
“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. § 1103.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider that merely
reiterates arguments previously presented to the BIA does not substitute
specifying errors of facts or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider.
Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1103.2(b)(1)).
2
Martinez’s motion to reconsider failed to identify any errors of fact or law in
the BIA’s prior decision upholding the IJ’s denial of his application. Instead,
Martinez merely reargued he was eligible for withholding of removal and
extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of his asylum application.
Martinez reiterated that the FARC persecuted him because of an imputed political
opinion, and that he faced persecution if he returned to Colombia. Martinez
previously advanced those arguments before the BIA. Therefore, the BIA’s
decision to deny Martinez’s motion was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Accordingly, we deny Martinez’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
3