Garcia-Lopez v. Reno ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60007
ENRIQUE GARCIA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
November 16, 2000
Before GOODWIN*, GARWOOD and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM**:
Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review for
lack of jurisdiction on the ground, among others, that it is
untimely. For the reasons below stated, we agree and accordingly
grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for review for
want of jurisdiction.
The petition for review seeks to challenge the decision of the
*
Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing Petitioner’s appeal
from the January 25, 1999, decision of the Immigration Judge
ordering Petitioner removed to Mexico and denying his application
for voluntary departure. The removal proceedings had been
commenced in 1998 with the issuance of the notice to appear. The
BIA’s decision was issued and mailed to Petitioner’s counsel of
record at his address of record on October 29, 1999. The petition
for review was hence due to be filed in this court by not later
than thirty days thereafter, namely by not later than Monday
November 29, 1999. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). However, the petition
for review was not filed in this (or any other) court until
Wednesday, January 5, 2000. These facts are undisputed and
unchallenged. There is no suggestion in the record nor any
contention by Petitioner that the delay in filing the petition for
review was due to any error, fault or failure on the part of
Respondent or the BIA or the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(or the United States Postal Service). Where the petition for
review is not timely filed this court lacks jurisdiction.
Karimian-Kaklaki v. I.N.S., 997 F.2d 108 (5th Cir. 1993); Guirguis
v. I.N.S., 993 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1993). We have no authority to
enlarge the time for filing a petition for review. Id.; Fed. R.
App. P. 26(b).
Because the petition for review is untimely, we lack
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for review is hereby
2
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
3