Filed: May 15, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-11005 Non-Argument Calendar _ Agency No. A070-623-999 ZIYAAD SABAN, a.k.a. Saban Ziyaad, a.k.a. Saban Zeyaad, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ (May 15, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page
Summary: Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-11005 Non-Argument Calendar _ Agency No. A070-623-999 ZIYAAD SABAN, a.k.a. Saban Ziyaad, a.k.a. Saban Zeyaad, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ (May 15, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page:..
More
Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11005
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A070-623-999
ZIYAAD SABAN,
a.k.a. Saban Ziyaad,
a.k.a. Saban Zeyaad,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 15, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 2 of 6
Ziyaad Saban, a native and citizen of South Africa, seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reconsider its
prior order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen.
In February 2005, the IJ ordered Saban removed in absentia after he departed the
United States while his removal proceedings were still pending. In April 2011,
Saban moved to reopen his proceedings, arguing that his Notice to Appear had
been improvidently issued because he was not removable pursuant to Immigration
and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), for
being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of
admission. The IJ denied Saban’s motion to reopen and, in October 2012, the BIA
affirmed the IJ’s denial of Saban’s motion to reopen on the grounds that it was
untimely filed. Saban moved the BIA to reconsider its decision, arguing for the
first time that he had serious mental impairments that constituted exceptional
circumstances that excused his failure to appear at his removal hearing, and that
the IJ should have held a competency hearing. Saban also argued again that he
was not removable as charged. In November 2012, the BIA denied Saban’s
motion to reconsider.
On appeal, Saban argues that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his
motion to reopen and motion to reconsider because the IJ violated his due process
rights when she failed to determine whether he had the mental competency to
2
Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 3 of 6
understand the proceedings. Additionally, he asserts that the BIA also abused its
discretion in denying his motion to reconsider because he was not removable
pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i). Lastly, Saban argues that he was deprived due
process of law under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356,
130 S. Ct. 1473,
176
L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), because he was not warned of the immigration consequences
of his guilty plea.
As an initial matter, we review de novo our own subject matter jurisdiction.
Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). A
petition for review must be filed with the court of appeals no later than 30 days
after the BIA’s final order of removal. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
When the 30th day is on a weekend or legal holiday, the filing period continues to
run until the end of the next day that this not a weekend or legal holiday.
Fed.R.App.P. 26(a)(1)(C). The statutory time limit for filing a petition for review
in an immigration proceeding is mandatory and jurisdictional and not subject to
equitable tolling. Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir.
2005). If a petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, we lack
jurisdiction to consider the claim. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
463 F.3d
1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2006). When an appellant fails to offer argument on an
issue, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1228
n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
3
Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 4 of 6
We review the BIA’s 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). A
motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order
and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” INA § 240(c)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(6)(C). “[A] motion that merely republishes the reasons that had failed
to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its
mind.”
Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329 (quotation omitted). Consequently, a motion to
reconsider that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the BIA does
not specify errors of facts or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider.
Id. Moreover, a motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that could have
been raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied. Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006).
To the extent that Saban is challenging the BIA’s October 2012 order
affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen, his March 11, 2013 petition for
review is untimely. See INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Therefore, we
lack jurisdiction to review such arguments. Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3. We
also lack jurisdiction to review Saban’s Padilla argument because he failed to
exhaust it before the IJ and the BIA. See
Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1251.
Accordingly, we dismiss Saban’s petition for review as to these issues.
4
Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 5 of 6
On appeal, Saban does not appear to challenge the BIA’s determination that
he did not set forth an adequate basis for reconsideration because he did not
identify any prior arguments that were overlooked or identify any errors of law or
fact. Instead, Saban appears to be reasserting his arguments that the IJ should have
held a competency hearing and he was not removable as charged, which he raised
in his motion to reconsider. Because he has not challenged the BIA’s
determination that he did not identify any prior arguments that were overlooked or
identify any errors of law or fact in the BIA’s original opinion, he arguably
abandoned any such challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider.
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2.
Regardless of any potential abandonment, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying Saban’s motion to reconsider. Instead of pointing to any
errors in the BIA’s earlier opinion, Saban argued for the first time that his mental
capacity constituted extraordinary circumstances that caused his failure to attend
his hearing. He also reiterated the argument that he made in his motion to reopen
to the IJ and in his appeal to the BIA that he was not removable as charged based
on Matter of Alyazji, 25 I. & N. Dec. 397 (BIA 2011). Because Saban’s motion to
reconsider reiterated old arguments and raised a new one that he could have made
in earlier proceedings, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to
reconsider. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329; Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 58.
5
Case: 13-11005 Date Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 6 of 6
Accordingly, we deny Saban’s petition to the extent that he is challenging the
denial of his motion to reconsider.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
6
