Case: 18-13178 Date Filed: 06/27/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13178
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A026-701-817
EBONY NASRINE DANIELLE PHILLIPS,
a.k.a. Ebony Danielle Beam,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(June 27, 2019)
Before MARTIN, NEWSOM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13178 Date Filed: 06/27/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Ebony Phillips, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order of removal and denial of her
application for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Phillips argues
the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erred in concluding the IJ lacked
jurisdiction to consider her application for adjustment of status while removal
proceedings were pending against her. She contends that, since the Department of
Homeland Security classified her as an admitted alien in her Notice to Appear, and
not as an arriving alien, the IJ had jurisdiction to consider her application for
adjustment of status, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), and
1245.2(a)(1)(i).
The Government, in turn, argues that we lack jurisdiction over Phillips’
petition for review because she filed it after the 30-day window to appeal provided
for in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) expired. The government notes Phillips’ order of
removal became final on June 27, 2018, when the BIA dismissed her appeal, and
she did not file her petition for review with this Court until July 30, 2018.
We review our own subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Martinez v. U.S.
Att’y Gen,
446 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2006). Generally speaking, we have
jurisdiction to review a final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
However, a petition for review of an order of removal “must be filed not later than
30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). And
2
Case: 18-13178 Date Filed: 06/27/2019 Page: 3 of 3
as we have noted, “[s]ince the statutory limit for filing a petition for review in an
immigration proceeding is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional,’ it is not subject to
equitable tolling.” Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir.
2005) (citing Stone v. INS,
514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995)). In Dakane, we determined
we lacked jurisdiction to consider a petitioner’s challenges to his final order of
removal because the petitioner did not timely file his petition for review with this
Court.
Id. Accordingly, we refused to consider his petition to the extent that he
challenged his final order of removal.
Id.
We lack jurisdiction over Phillips’ petition for review, because she did not
timely file it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);
Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3. Moreover, the
aforementioned deadline is not subject to equitable tolling, nor does Phillips argue
that point.
Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1272 n.3. Accordingly, we dismiss her petition for
review in its entirety.
PETITON DISMISSED.
3
