Mihai Tanjala v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Mihai Tanjala. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Petition DENIED. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-13276

Date Filed: 03/23/2016

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13276
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-403-495

MIHAI TANJALA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 23, 2016)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-13276

Date Filed: 03/23/2016

Page: 2 of 4

Mihai Tanjala, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions this Court for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal. The petition
seeks review of the BIA’s dismissal of Mr. Tanjala’s appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his untimely motion to reopen and reconsider a prior decision
granting voluntary departure after he was notified that he was removable for
committing a crime involving moral turpitude. Mr. Tanjala argues that his motion
was timely filed and that we should remand to the BIA to reinstate his voluntary
departure. He also asserts that he did not commit the crime that subjected him to
removal and that he qualified for relief based on his political opinion and
membership in a particular social group. Additionally, Mr. Tanjala argues that the
IJ did not properly weigh the evidence. After careful review, we deny the petition
for review.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. See Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th
Cir. 2007); Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). Under
this standard, “our review is limited to determining whether an exercise of
administrative discretion occurred and whether it was arbitrary or capricious.”
Montano Cisneros v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1224, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008). An IJ
does not need to discuss every piece of evidence before him, but is required to

2

Case: 15-13276

Date Filed: 03/23/2016

Page: 3 of 4

consider the evidence submitted. See Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1376
(11th Cir. 2006).
Generally, only one motion to reconsider is allowed, and it must be filed
within 30 days of the entry of the removal order. See INA § 240(c)(6)(A), (B), 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A), (B). Additionally, subject to certain exceptions, a party
may only file one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion “shall be
filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.”
See INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). There is no time limit,
however, where the motion to reopen is to file for asylum and is based on changed
country conditions, if such information was not available and would not have been
known at the previous hearing.

See INA 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C.

1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
For several reasons, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr.
Tanjala’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen and reconsider. First,
the motion was untimely, as it was filed after the 30-day time period for motions to
reconsider and after the 90-day period for motions to reopen. Second, Mr. Tanjala
did not establish changed country conditions; he merely reiterated general facts
about corruption in Romania. The record indicates that the IJ considered the
evidence submitted, and so we find unavailing Mr. Tanjala’s argument that the IJ
did not properly weigh the evidence. Finally, Mr. Tanjala’s arguments on appeal
3

Case: 15-13276

Date Filed: 03/23/2016

Page: 4 of 4

are insufficient to warrant a remand to the BIA because those arguments were
previously presented; therefore, the BIA’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.

4