[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Sept. 28, 2009
No. 09-10328 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A098-736-431
MARIA CLAUDIA FLOREZ ORDONEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(September 28, 2009)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maria Claudia Florez Ordonez, a citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her motion to reconsider, 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). 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). After
the BIA has affirmed an IJ’s order of removal, an alien may seek reconsideration
on the ground that the BIA has made a legal or factual error. 8 U.S.C.
§1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). “A motion to reconsider 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.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1);
see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). A motion to reconsider that merely restates the
arguments the BIA previously rejected provides no reason for the BIA to change
its prior decision. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. “Therefore, merely reiterating
arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying . . .
errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” Id. (citing
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)).
Florez merely reiterates her previous arguments the BIA considered. She
does not specify any “errors of fact or law” that would necessitate the granting of
her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion by denying Florez’s motion to reconsider, and we deny this portion of
her petition. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329.
2
Additionally, we lack jurisdiction to review Florez’s underlying motion to
reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later
than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”). The BIA denied
Florez’s motion to reopen on September 15, 2008. On October 15, 2008, she filed
a motion to reconsider with the BIA, and, on January 22, 2009, petitioned this
Court for review of the BIA’s December 23, 2008 order denying the motion to
reconsider. The filing of a motion to reconsider “does not toll the time to petition
for review.” Stone v. INS, 115 S. Ct. 1537, 1544 (1995). Therefore, we dismiss
Florez’s petition to the extent she attacks the BIA’s findings denying the
underlying motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED as to the Motion to Reconsider, and DISMISSED
as to the Motion to Reopen.
3