Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0848-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rigoberto LOBO-ZAPATA, Petitioner, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
    No. 11-15084
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 24, 2012.
    Eduardo Rigoberto Soto, Attorney at Law, Coral Gables, FL, for Petitioner.
    Jane Tracey Schaffner, David V. Bernal, Krystal Samuels, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Michelle Ressler, District Counsel’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent.
    Before CARNES, MARCUS, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rigobero Lobo-Zapata petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen his case. The BIA denied that motion as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the BIA’s final decision and did not fall within any exception to that time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (“[T]he motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order or removal.”) Zapata does not challenge that conclusion in his brief to this Court, so he has abandoned any argument that the BIA was wrong to conclude that his motion to reopen was untimely. See Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1145 (11th Cir.2010).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
      . The BIA also found that the motion to reopen was essentially a motion to reconsider. The BIA concluded that if construed as motion to reconsider, it was still untimely because it was not filed within 30 days of the BIA’s final decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B). Zapata has not challenged that conclusion either, so he has abandoned any issue about that as well. See Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1145.