Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03222/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Respondent
Thomas Ombuya Omao
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3222

___________

Thomas Ombuya Omao, *

*

Petitioner, * Petition for Review of an 

* Order of the Board of Immigration

v. * Appeals.

*

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * [UNPUBLISHED]

of the United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: June 16, 2006

Filed: June 22, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, Circuit Judges, DOTY,1

 District Judge

___________

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Thomas Omao seeks review of a final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed as untimely Omao's appeal from the

Immigration Judge's (IJ) determination of removability and denial of Omao's

cancellation of removal and application for voluntary departure. Also before us is the

government's motion to dismiss. We grant the government's motion and dismiss the

petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellate Case: 05-3222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2006 Entry ID: 2059467
-2-

Omao's appeal from the IJ's December 8, 2004, order was due on or before

January 7, 2005, thirty days after the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b). Omao

filed an untimely appeal on January 11, 2005. The BIA's order was only concerned

with the timeliness of Petitioner's appeal. According to the BIA's order, Petitioner's

recourse was either to file a motion to reconsider with the BIA, or a motion to reopen

with the IJ. Petitioner claims he did not file a motion to reconsider because such a

motion would have been futile. However, the BIA set out the proper course for Omao

to follow. 

Even though Omao clearly acknowledges the tardiness of his appeal to the BIA,

he urges us to reach the merits of his petition because due process considerations

prevail in this instance. He claims that his interests in immediate judicial review

outweigh the government's interests in the efficiency of administrative autonomy that

the exhaustion doctrine is designed to further. We find this argument unavailing. It

is true that relief from an untimeliness ruling might be granted on procedural due

process grounds in certain circumstances, Somakoko v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 882, 883

(8th Cir. 2005), but not where, as here, the ruling was from the BIA's dismissal,

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his proceedings were fundamentally unfair

and there is nothing unique warranting review. See Atiqullah v. INS, 39 F.3d 896,

898 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (applying former statutory language regarding

appeals and recognizing that generally the time limit for filing notice of appeal to BIA

is mandatory and jurisdictional but that in unique circumstances if a party is misled

by words or conduct of court, an appellate tribunal may have jurisdiction to hear an

otherwise untimely appeal). 

Given the procedural stature of this case, we find that we lack jurisdiction to

review Omao's petition and grant the government's motion to dismiss. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2006 Entry ID: 2059467