Case ID: f-appx_207/html/0450-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sultan Ali HIMANI; Shaheen Himani, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-61092
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 29, 2006.
    Sarfraz Aftab Sharif, Sharif & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioners.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sultan Ali Himani and Shaheen Himani seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed their appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of their claim for withholding of removal.

A petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The 30-day deadline began to run in this case on October 25, 2005, when the BIA issued its decision and wrote a letter to counsel notifying him of the decision. See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 110-11 (5th Cir.1993). The deadline expired on November 24, 2005. The petition for review, filed on November 28, 2005, was filed after the expiration of the deadline. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003); but see Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005)(distinguishing between filing deadlines that are claim-processing rules and those that are rules governing subject-matter jurisdiction).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.