Salvador-Reyes v. Gonzales

Fifth Circuit

Salvador-Reyes v. Gonzales

141 F. App'x 348

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 18, 2005

Docket04-60591

StatusUnpublished

This text of 141 F. App'x 348 (Salvador-Reyes v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Salvador-Reyes v. Gonzales, 141 F. App'x 348 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Maria Salvador-Reyes (Reyes) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) March 17, 2004, decision dismissing the appeal from the denial *349 of his motion to reopen a 1990 in absentia order of deportation. The BIA denied Reyes’s motion for reconsideration of this decision on June 8, 2004. Reyes filed his petition for review on July 7, 2004.

We are required to examine jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. See Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir.1996). Reyes had 30 days to file a timely petition for review from the BIA’s decision. See Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003); Ibrik v. INS, 108 F.3d 596, 597 (5th Cir.1997). The BIA’s denial of an appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of which requires its own petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 401-02, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Because Reyes did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen until more than three months after this decision, his petition for review is not timely as to the March 17, 2004 decision. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this decision, and the petition to review it is DISMISSED. See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993).

Although Reyes’s petition for review is timely as to the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, he has not made any arguments regarding this decision. Therefore, he has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his motion for reconsideration, and, to the extent that his petition for review may be construed as extending to that decision, it is DENIED. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir.1995).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Maria Salvador-Reyes (Reyes) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) March 17, 2004, decision dismissing the appeal from the denial *349 of his motion to reopen a 1990 in absentia order of deportation. The BIA denied Reyes’s motion for reconsideration of this decision on June 8, 2004. Reyes filed his petition for review on July 7, 2004.

We are required to examine jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. See Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir.1996). Reyes had 30 days to file a timely petition for review from the BIA’s decision. See Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003); Ibrik v. INS, 108 F.3d 596, 597 (5th Cir.1997). The BIA’s denial of an appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of which requires its own petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 401-02, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Because Reyes did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen until more than three months after this decision, his petition for review is not timely as to the March 17, 2004 decision. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this decision, and the petition to review it is DISMISSED. See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993).

Although Reyes’s petition for review is timely as to the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, he has not made any arguments regarding this decision. Therefore, he has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his motion for reconsideration, and, to the extent that his petition for review may be construed as extending to that decision, it is DENIED. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir.1995).

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 F. App'x 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvador-reyes-v-gonzales-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack