Sergei Nikoshchenkov v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 22-10366 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2023 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10366 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SERGEI NIKOSHCHENKOV, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209-187-895 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-10366 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2023 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 22-10366 Before WILSON, LUCK, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sergei Nikoshchenkov seeks review of the Board of Immi- gration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its initial order dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for deferral of removal. He argues that the BIA ignored relevant evidence in resolving that administrative ap- peal, improperly affirmed the IJ’s refusal to issue a subpoena and grant him deferral of removal under the United Nations Conven- tion Against Torture (“CAT”), and disregarded his application for withholding of removal. After thorough review, we deny the peti- tion for review. 1 We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopted or explicitly agreed with the opinion of the IJ. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1340– 41 (11th Cir. 2003). An alien may move to reconsider a decision that the alien is removable from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6). The 1 Our jurisdiction in this appeal is limited to reviewing the BIA order denying Nikoshchenkov’s motion to reconsider. We lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s initial order dismissing Nikoshchenkov’s appeal, because he did not file a peti- tion for review of that decision within 30 days. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). USCA11 Case: 22-10366 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 01/09/2023 Page: 3 of 5 22-10366 Opinion of the Court 3 motion must be filed within 30 days of the entry of the final order of removal, and “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previ- ous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” Id. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), (C). A motion “that merely republishes the rea- sons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind.” Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). Accord- ingly, “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. (quotations and altera- tions omitted). In reviewing an application for relief, the IJ and the BIA must consider all evidence submitted. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1302 (11th Cir. 2015). However, they “need not address specifically each claim the petitioner made or each piece of evi- dence the petitioner presented.” Id. (quotations omitted). Here, …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals