[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-15504 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 29, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
Agency No. A098-730-411
ANMARY CAROLINA SOCORRO BERMUDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 29, 2009)
Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Anmary Socorro Bermudez, a native and citizen of Venezuela, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied her motion
to reconsider. Socorro contends that the Board erred when it refused to reopen her
removal proceeding. We deny in part and dismiss in part Socorro’s petition.
I. BACKGROUND
Socorro was admitted in November 2003 as a nonimmigrant visitor. In
March 2005, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a notice to appear
and charged Socorro for staying in the country past the authorized period. INA §
237(a)(1)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). Socorro conceded removability and filed
an application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Socorro alleged that she
was threatened and intimidated after she refused to falsify government payroll
documents to pay individuals who supported Hugo Chavez.
The immigration judge ruled that Socorro’s application for asylum was
untimely and, in the alternative, the application failed on the merits. The
immigration judge found that the threats and intimidation did not establish that
Socorro suffered past persecution, or the possibility of future persecution or
torture, particularly when Socorro remained in the position for several months after
the alleged persecution began and she waited more than a year to leave Venezuela.
The Board dismissed Soccoro’s appeal and her motion for reconsideration.
2
In March 2008, Socorro moved to reopen her immigration proceedings on
the basis of a change in conditions in Venezuela. Socorro submitted statements
from three acquaintances in Venezuela that Socorro had been harassed and
threatened by the Bolivarian Circles. Socorro also submitted several newspaper
reports that the Chavez government violated human rights and did not tolerate
disagreement with its policies. The Board denied the motion as untimely and ruled
that Socorro failed to submit evidence that was previously unavailable to prove
that conditions in Venezuela had changed since her original removal hearing.
In July 2008, Socorro moved the Board to reconsider as a “humanitarian
act.” The Board denied the motion on the basis that Socorro failed to “demonstrate
any error” in its previous decision. The Board explained that it lacked “power to
grant equitable remedies or to confer general humanitarian relief on aliens” in the
absence of evidence that Socorro’s removal proceedings were “fundamentally
unfair” or that she was denied “a full and fair opportunity to be heard.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the 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).
III. DISCUSSION
Socorro challenges the denial of her motion to reconsider on two grounds.
Socorro argues that she submitted evidence to establish that conditions were
3
declining in Venezuela. Socorro also argues that the Board failed to recognize it
had authority to sua sponte reopen her removal proceedings, but we lack
jurisdiction to consider that argument. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d
1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008).
The Board did not abuse its discretion by denying Socorro’s motion.
Socorro argued that the Board overlooked statements and newspaper articles that
she submitted with her motion to reopen, but those documents do not establish that
conditions have changed in Venezuela. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1331. In the
absence of evidence that conditions in Venezuela had changed since Socorro filed
her original application, she was not eligible for an exception to the time limit to
file a motion to reopen. See INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii); 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii).
Socorro also complains that the immigration judge and Board failed to
consider her request for relief under the Convention, but she failed to petition
timely this Court to review the order of removal. An alien must petition for review
of an order of removal “no[] later than 30 days after the date of the final order of
removal.” INA § 242(b)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The order of removal became
final on August 24, 2007, when the Board dismissed Socorro’s appeal, and her
petition for review, filed on January 16, 2009, was untimely. We lack jurisdiction
to review the order of removal.
4
IV. CONCLUSION
We DENY the petition challenging the denial of Socorro’s motion to
reconsider and DISMISS the petition challenging the order of removal.
DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
5