Case: 18-12447 Date Filed: 05/28/2019 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12447 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A206-366-254 HUSSAIN MOSHAROF, a.k.a. Mosharof Hussain, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 28, 2019) Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12447 Date Filed: 05/28/2019 Page: 2 of 7 Mosharof Hossain,1 a native and citizen of Bangladesh, seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. He contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) abused its discretion by not granting his motion because it (1) failed to properly analyze the record and mischaracterized the evidence based on a prior adverse credibility finding, (2) improperly gave affidavits in support of his motion minimal weight, (3) required to him to meet a higher burden of proof by requiring him to show that the conditions in Bangladesh had “significantly worsened,” and (4) abused its discretion by not finding that he was eligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief based on the newly submitted evidence. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). Our review “is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Generally, [m]otions to reopen are disfavored, especially in a removal proceedings, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the [removable] alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). 1 The caption for this case and many documents in the administrative record spell Hossain’s last name “Hussain.” However, Hossain filed a motion with the IJ to correct the spelling and order of his name, which indicated that the correct spelling of his last name was “Hossain.” Accordingly, we use Hossain. 2 Case: 18-12447 Date Filed: 05/28/2019 Page: 3 of 7 We are required to “inquire into our subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” Gaksakuman v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 767 F.3d 1164, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). A petition to review a removal order must be made within 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). We have held that we lack jurisdiction to review earlier trips through immigration proceedings. Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Attorney General, 881 F.3d 860, 870 (11th Cir. 2018). In Gaksakuman, we held that we lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of a removal order because, although the petitioner filed a petition to review that order, the petition was subsequently dismissed and the 30-day window to file a petition for review had passed. 767 F.3d at 1168-69. A motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals