Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02195/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02195-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ashcroft
Respondent
Momina Weyesso
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2195

___________

Momina Weyesso, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General, *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2005

 Filed: February 15, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Momina Weyesso, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) declining to reopen her asylum case. Weyesso

entered the United States in July 1999 on a three-month nonimmigrant visa, and in

September 1999 she applied for asylum and related relief. In November 1999 she was

charged with being removable for having remained in the United States beyond the

permitted time. On March 28, 2001, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Weyesso’s

application for asylum and related relief and ordered her removed to Ethiopia. Her

untimely administrative appeal was dismissed, and reconsideration was denied in

October and November 2001.

Appellate Case: 04-2195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2005 Entry ID: 1867858 
-2-

On May 8, 2003, Weyesso moved the IJ to reopen her case on the ground that

she had new evidence. The IJ denied the motion, finding that it was untimely, as it

was not filed within 90 days of the final order of removal; that Weyesso had not

shown the evidence she sought to offer was material and could not have been

previously presented; and that she had already received a detailed decision on her

case. Weyesso appealed and the BIA declined to reopen the case. 

In her brief supporting her petition for review, Weyesso challenges the IJ’s

denial of asylum and related relief. Those issues are not properly before us, however.

See Boudaguian v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2004) (court reviewing

denial of motion to reopen does not have jurisdiction to review underlying order if

that order was not timely appealed). Weyesso has thus waived any challenge to the

denial of her motion to reopen, see Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756

(8th Cir. 2004) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes waiver of that issue),

which motion was, in any event, untimely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (motion to

reopen must be filed within 90 days of date of entry of final administrative order of

removal); Boudaguian, 376 F.3d at 827 (removal order is final when issued).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2005 Entry ID: 1867858