Jonal Velasco-Rojas v. US Attorney General, US Department of Homeland Security

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 6, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10144
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A075-892-415
JONAS VELASCO-ROJAS,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondents.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 6, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Jonas Velasco-Rojas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ denial of his motion to reconsider.
After the immigration judge determined that Velasco-Rojas was neither
entitled to asylum nor eligible for cancellation of removal, he appealed to the BIA.
In his appeal he argued that the IJ abused its discretion in failing to consider his
membership in a particular social group. The BIA dismissed his appeal, however,
finding that he did not define the social group or provide a persuasive argument
for disturbing the IJ’s decision. Velasco-Rojas then filed a motion to reconsider
with the BIA in which he argued that the BIA had failed to consider that he was
persecuted on the basis of his political opinion. The BIA denied Velasco-Rojas’
motion to reconsider, reasoning that his arguments in that motion related only to a
political opinion claim and did not assert a specific error with respect to the BIA’s
previous determination that he did not belong to a particular social group.
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 (2007). “Our review is
limited to determining whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or
capricious manner.” Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir.
2009). An alien may file a motion requesting that the BIA reconsider a prior
decision, but that motion must specify the errors of law or fact in the BIA’s
2

-- 2 of 3 --

previous order and must be supported by pertinent authority. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(6).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Velasco-Rojas’ motion to
reconsider. Contrary to his argument, the BIA did not improperly refuse to
consider his political opinion claim, which Velasco-Rojas did not present to the
BIA in his initial appeal. His motion to reconsider did not specify any errors of
law or fact in the BIA’s previous order.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --