Kenzo Roberts v. U.S. Attorney General

Opinion

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13403

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KENZO ROBERTS, Petitioner,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-054-197

____________________

2

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13403

Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction . The 30-day statutory time limit established in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) required Kenzo Roberts to file a petition for review of the September 6, 2023, decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming his order of removal on or before October 6, 2023. See INA §§ 101(a)(47), 240(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(47), 1229a(c)(1)(A); INA § 242(b)(1)-(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)-(2); see also Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[A] petitioner has 30 days from the date of the final order of removal to seek review in this Court.”). However , Roberts did not file a petition for review until October 10, 2023. Thus, the petition for review is untimely as to the BIA decision and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(1).

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.