Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-09525/USCOURTS-ca10-15-09525-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yimara Kathun Boksh
Petitioner
Loretta Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

YIMARA KATHUN BOKSH, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

LORETTA LYNCH*

, United States 

Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 15-9525 

(Petition for Review) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter comes on for consideration of the respondent’s motion to dismiss and 

the petitioner’s response. Upon consideration thereof, the motion is granted. 

The petitioner states in her petition that she is seeking review of the “Summary 

Opinion Denying Certiorari entered by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of 

Oklahoma.” This court does not have jurisdiction to review an order of the Court of 

Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance 

Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, which is 

not to be expanded by judicial decree. They possess only the power authorized by 

 *

 On April 27, 2015 Loretta Lynch became the United States Attorney General. 

Consequently, her name has been substituted for that of Eric H. Holder, Jr., the former 

United States Attorney General, in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 7, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-9525 Document: 01019428010 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Congress and statute. It is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction and 

the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”) 

(citations omitted). “Federal subject matter jurisdiction ‘cannot be consented to or 

waived, and its presence must be established in every cause under review in the federal 

courts.’” Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe, 770 F.3d 944, 947 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting 

Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, 696 F.3d 1018, 1022 (10th Cir. 2012). There is no 

statutory grant of jurisdiction for this court to review a decision by the Oklahoma Court 

of Criminal Appeals. 

If the petitioner is seeking review of the decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals, this court lacks jurisdiction as her petition, filed more than one year after the 

BIA issued its decision, is untimely. See 8 U.S. C. § 1252(b)(1) (establishing a 30-day 

time limit to file a petition for review). This time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. 

Nahatchevska v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 1226, 1227 (10th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, the respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this matter is 

DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

by: Ellen Rich Reiter 

 Jurisdictional Attorney 

Appellate Case: 15-9525 Document: 01019428010 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 2