Sovjet Maze v. Us Attorney General ( 2012 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 24, 2012
No. 11-12206
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A088-052-197
SOVJET MAZE,
BASILIKA MAZE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(January 24, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sovjet and Basilika Maze (collectively Petitioners) seek review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying their motion to reopen and
reconsider.
The Petitioners, natives and citizens of Albania, separately entered the
United States as nonimmigrant visitors. While in the United States, they filed an
affirmative application for asylum.1 After they each remained beyond the
expiration of their visas, the Department of Homeland Security issued notices to
appear, charging them as removable. They conceded removability and filed an
amended application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT).
An Immigration Judge (IJ) conducted a hearing, found that Sovjet’s
testimony lacked credibility and that the Petitioners had not shown they were
eligible for asylum, and ordered the Petitioners removed. The Petitioners appealed
to the BIA, which dismissed the appeal. The Petitioners did not file a petition for
review in this court; instead, they filed a motion to reopen and reconsider before
the BIA. The BIA denied the motion and the Petitioners now seek review.
1
Sovjet filed an asylum application as the lead petitioner. Basilika proceeded as a
derivative beneficiary of that application.
2
We review the BIA’s decision as the final judgment, unless the BIA has
expressly adopted the IJ’s decision. Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th
Cir. 2007). Here, because the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision, we
review the BIA’s decision only. We generally review the BIA’s denial of a motion
to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Mejia Rodriguez v. Reno, 178 F.3d 1139,
1145 (11th Cir. 1999). We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo.
Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
When a petitioner does not argue an issue on appeal, that issue is abandoned.
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
An alien must file a petition for review within 30 days of the final order of
removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272
n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). A motion to reopen or reconsider does not affect the finality,
and will not toll the time period to petition for review, of an underlying order of
removal. Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1995).
In this case, the Petitioners did not file a timely petition for review of the
BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s order of removal. Thus, an argument that the IJ
erred by denying asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief is not properly
before this court. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of
asylum and withholding of removal, we dismiss the petition with regards to those
3
claims.
As to the denial of the motion to reopen, which is the only issue before us,
the Petitioners fail to raise any challenge to the BIA’s denial of their motion to
reopen and reconsider. Therefore, they have abandoned all claims as to that
decision, and we deny the petition with regard to that order.
PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
4