Ateya Ramadan Swilam v. US Attorney General , 522 F. App'x 892 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-14539 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14539
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A028-590-919
ATEYA RAMADAN SWILAM,
Petitioner,
versus
US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(July 8, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14539 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Ateya Ramadan Swilam seeks this Court’s review of the BIA’s denial of his
motion to reconsider its denial of his motion to reopen as time and number barred.
In his brief, Swilam raises only general equitable arguments, asking this Court to
overturn the BIA’s final order of deportation, which became final in 1996. After
careful review, we deny the petition in part, and dismiss it in part.
We review the BIA’s decision in a motion to reopen or a motion for
reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281,
1286 (11th Cir. 2008). A petitioner abandons all issues on review for which he
fails to offer argument in his initial brief. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
Our jurisdiction to review motions to reopen or reconsider an immigration
ruling is implicit in the statutory grant of jurisdiction to review a final order of
removal. See Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2003); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). A petitioner, seeking review of an immigration ruling,
must file his petition for review within 30 days of the order. 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(1). The statutory deadline for filing a petition for review of an
immigration decision is mandatory and jurisdictional. Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
677 F.3d 1043, 1045-46 (11th Cir. 2012).
2
Case: 12-14539 Date Filed: 07/08/2013 Page: 3 of 3
In this case, Swilam’s September 4, 2012 petition for review only gives us
authority to review the BIA’s orders that had been entered within 30 days of the
petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The only order, therefore, that is presently
within our jurisdiction is the BIA’s August 21, 2012 denial of Swilam’s May 23,
2012 motion to reconsider. In his initial appellate brief, Swilam fails to address or
mention the August 2012 order in his brief, and has thus has abandoned all issues
related to the August 2012 order. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2.
Instead, he presents general arguments as to why he should not be deported
and references errors that the BIA made in its orders from the mid-1990s. Indeed,
in his statement of jurisdiction, he asserts that he is appealing from a May 2, 1992
judgment, which was the date that his voluntary departure order expired. Because
Swilam’s appeal of the BIA’s decisions from the 1990s is untimely -- well outside
the 30-day window to appeal -- we lack jurisdiction over these arguments.
Accordingly, we deny Swilam’s petition for review because he has
abandoned all issues properly before us, and dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction as to those arguments that Swilam actually raises on petition for
review.
PETITTION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
3