Haroldo Lopez v. U.S. Attorney General , 154 F. App'x 182 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
November 10, 2005
No. 05-11579
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A95-546-404
& A95-546-405
HAROLDO LOPEZ,
JULIA P. TORRES,
SOFIA M. LOPEZ,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(November 10, 2005)
Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Haroldo Lopez, Julia P. Torres, and Sofia M. Lopez, through counsel, seek
review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions (1) affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order finding them removable and denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United
Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c),
and (2) denying their motion to reconsider.
Petitioners challenge the BIA’s December 10, 2004, decision affirming the
IJ’s decision. However, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this claim.
“We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Brooks v.
Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2002). While we generally have
jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, the petition for review must be filed
within 30 days of the date of the final order of removal. See Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) § 242(a)(1), (b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). We
have held that “[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) (per curiam) (citing Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S. Ct. 1537, 1549,
131 L. Ed. 2d 465 (1995)). A motion to reconsider filed with the BIA does not
2
suspend the finality of the underlying BIA order and does not toll the review
period. Stone, 514 U.S. at 405-06, 115 S. Ct. at 1549 (construing the former 90-
day period for filing a petition for review under the INA § 106(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. §
1105a(a)).
We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order
of removal issued on December 10, 2004. The petitioners were required to file a
petition for review of their underlying claims by January 10, 2005. However, they
did not do so until March 22, 2005. While the petitioners filed a motion to
reconsider the BIA’s summary affirmance on January 10, 2005, this filing did not
toll the limitations period for filing a petition for review in this Court. See id.
Though we retain jurisdiction to review the March 3, 2005, BIA order
denying the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, they fail to raise any argument
with respect to this motion. Accordingly, this claim is abandoned. Mendoza v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
discern no reversible error. Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the petition for
review in part and deny the petition for review in part.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3