Burim Haliti v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-60200 January 6, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BURIM HALITI,
Petitioner,
versus
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 075 376 816
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Burim Haliti petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
No. 13-60200
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider its dismissal
of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen. He contends that the immi-
gration judge (“IJ”) erred in denying his motion to reopen and that the BIA
erred in affirming that denial. He contends that his removal proceedings
should have been reopened because he never received notice of his hearing.
On October 16, 2012, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Haliti’s motion
to reopen and dismissed Haliti’s appeal. Haliti did not file with this court a
petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal but instead filed with
the BIA a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. Because Haliti did not
file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s order dated October 16, 2012, this
court lacks jurisdiction over that order. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405−06
(1995); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). This court’s
jurisdiction therefore extends only to the BIA’s February 27, 2013, order deny-
ing Haliti’s motion for reconsideration.
Although Haliti filed a timely petition for review of the BIA’s denial of
his motion for reconsideration, he fails to analyze the BIA’s reasons for denying
the motion, which the BIA provided in a clearly worded, succinct opinion.
Haliti has therefore abandoned the only issue that is before this court, which
is whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for reconsider-
ation. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 447 (5th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of
jurisdiction and DENIED in part.
2