[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Aug. 21, 2009
No. 09-10438 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A098-678-768
GEBER ELOY DIAZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 21, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Geber Eloy Diaz, a citizen of Venezuela, petitions this court for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to
reconsider the BIA’s previous order denying his motion to reopen his removal
proceedings. On appeal, Diaz identifies two errors that he contends warranted the
BIA’s reconsideration. First, he argues that the BIA erred as a matter of law by
refusing to consider three letters that he had submitted in support of his motion to
reopen. Second, Diaz asserts that the evidence that he submitted in support of his
motion to reopen was sufficient to establish changed country conditions in
Venezuela.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an 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 the BIA’s exercise of its discretion was
arbitrary or capricious. Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148, 1149 (11th Cir.
2005) (discussing standard for motions to reopen).
An alien who is subject to a final order of removal may move the BIA to
reopen his removal proceedings based on new evidence. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(1).
Generally, an alien must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the entry of a
final order of removal. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2). That time limit does not apply,
however, if the motion to reopen is based on changed country conditions. Id.
2
“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying
the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by
pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). “[M]erely reiterating arguments
previously presented to the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying . . . errors of fact or
law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329.
Here, in its order denying Diaz’s motion to reopen, the BIA found that the letters
submitted by Diaz were unreliable due to their uncertain origin. The BIA also
found that the evidence submitted by Diaz failed to establish changed country
conditions. In his motion to reconsider, Diaz did not specifically explain how
either conclusion was erroneous; instead, he merely reasserted the arguments made
in his motion to reopen.1 Because Diaz failed to establish that the BIA committed
any errors in denying the motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we deny Diaz’s petition.
PETITION DENIED.
1
Although Diaz explains that he was not required to authenticate the letters, he failed to
raise that issue before the BIA and thus has not exhausted it. Fernandez-Bernal v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 257 F.3d 1304, 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001).
3