[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUG 6, 2007
No. 06-16585 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A96-271-426
A96-271-427
GUSTAVO ADOLFO RESTREPO-VELASQUEZ,
LUZ ALBA BEDOYA BEDOYA,
ALEJANDRA RESTREPO BEDOYA,
SANTIAGO RESTREPO BEDOYA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 6, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gustavo Adolfo Restrepo-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Colombia,
petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied
his motion to reopen his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Restrepo-Velasquez argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied his
motion to reopen without considering the newly offered evidence. Because the
evidence offered was not material, we deny the petition.
The IJ denied Restrepo-Velasquez’s application for asylum because
extortion, not political persecution, motivated the incidents Restrepo-Velasquez
alleged. Restrepo-Velasquez filed two motions to reopen alleging he had new
evidence that established that he would be persecuted if returned to Colombia.
Both were denied. Restrepo-Velasquez appeals the denial of the second motion to
reopen.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for an
abuse of discretion. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006).
“Our review is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of
administrative discretion and whether the ma[nn]er of exercise has been arbitrary
or capricious.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The BIA may
grant a motion to reopen if the movant presents new evidence that is material and
was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the removal
hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). A petitioner is ordinarily permitted to file
2
one motion to reopen within 90 days of the date of the final order of removal, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), but the time and numerical limitations do not apply to
the filing of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions if the motion
is supported by evidence that is “material and was not available and would not
have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied the second motion to
reopen. Contrary to Restrepo-Velasquez’s contention, the BIA considered the new
evidence and found that it was not material because it did not establish that
Restrepo-Velasquez was being persecuted on account of a protected ground. We
agree. None of the new evidence establishes a connection between the alleged
persecution and Restrepo-Velasquez’s political opinion.
Restepo-Velasquez’s petition for review is
DENIED.
3