[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-10196 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar NOVEMBER 10, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
Agency No. A097-636-926
MARIA LONIGRO BORNEO,
RICARDO HERNANDEZ HORVATH,
RICARDO M. HERNANDEZ LONIGRO,
MARIAN HERNANDEZ,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(November 10, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maria Lonigro Borneo, along with her husband and two children, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order denying her
motion for reconsideration of the BIA’s earlier order affirming the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for withholding of removal and relief under
the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). See 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c). Borneo argues that the BIA erred in denying her motion to
reconsider because the harassing incidents she suffered in her home country of
Venezuela rose to the level of persecution and occurred on account of a protected
ground. She also argues that the record compels a conclusion that she would
likely be persecuted and tortured upon return to Venezuela.
“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). A
motion for reconsideration “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.” Id. at 1329 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)). However, a “motion
that merely republishes the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the
first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind.” Id. Accordingly,
“merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute
2
‘specifying . . . errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to
reconsider.” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)).
To the extent Borneo seeks to challenge the BIA’s initial order affirming the
IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection, we lack jurisdiction to
review her claims, as she had not filed a petition for review of the BIA’s original
decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“[A] petition for review filed with an
appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial
review of an order of removal.”).
As to the BIA’s denial of reconsideration, we discern no abuse of discretion.
In her motion to reconsider, Borneo did not specify any errors of fact or law that
occurred in the BIA’s original order dismissing her appeal. Rather, Borneo raised
essentially the same arguments as she did in her initial appeal of the IJ’s decision,
namely that the BIA had failed to cumulatively consider incidents of harassment
that she faced in Venezuela. Restating the same arguments gave the BIA no
reason to change its mind on reconsideration, and failure to specify errors of fact
or law in the initial order will preclude a successful motion to reconsider. See
Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion, and we
deny Borneo’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
3