[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 7, 2008
No. 07-13998 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A96-086-333
CARLOS EDUARDO RESTREPO-NORENA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 7, 2008)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Eduardo Restrepo-Norena, a citizen of Colombia, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) order, denying his motion to reopen
his removal proceedings. He contends the BIA erred by denying his motion in
light of new, previously unavailable affidavits from his brothers, stating that
guerillas believed he was a political activist. He asserts these new affidavits
establish he will be persecuted for his imputed political opinion.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion.
Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 2007). In this area, the
BIA’s discretion is “quite broad.” Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273, 1276 (11th Cir.
1999). The BIA “should have the right to be restrictive” in granting motions to
reopen because:
[g]ranting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of
deportation by aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously
produce new and material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie
case. It will also waste the time and efforts of immigration judges
called upon to preside at hearings automatically required by the prima
facie allegations.
INS v. Abudu, 108 S. Ct. 904, 913 (1988).
An alien who has been ordered removed may file one motion to reopen
proceedings, in which he must set forth the new facts to be proved at a reopened
proceeding, supported by evidentiary material. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (B).
The BIA has the authority to reopen any case upon which it has rendered a
2
decision if it finds the “evidence sought to be offered is material and was not
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The BIA may deny a motion to reopen “for at least three
reasons: (1) failure to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal; (2) failure to introduce evidence that was material and
previously unavailable; and (3) a determination that despite the alien's statutory
eligibility for relief, he or she is not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion.”
Li, 488 F.3d at 1374-75.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Restrepo’s motion to reopen
his removal proceedings. The BIA found Restrepo’s brothers’ affidavits
contradicted both (1) Restrepo’s prior characterization of his political activity as
limited, and (2) Restrepo’s written statement, which made no reference to any
political activity. While Restrepo argues his brothers’ statements demonstrated the
FARC imputed a political opinion upon him, the BIA reasonably found that neither
the brothers’ affidavits, nor any other evidence in the record, explained why
anyone would consider him a political activist, much less the best one in his
department. These shortcomings warranted the BIA’s decision to deny the motion
on the bases that (1) Restrepo failed to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal; and (2) even had he demonstrated eligibility for
3
asylum or withholding of removal, he was not entitled to a favorable exercise of
discretion. See Li, 488 F.3d at 1374-75. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review.
PETITION DENIED.
4