Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-09507/USCOURTS-ca10-16-09507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Elsa M. Murguia-Rodarte
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ELSA M. MURGUIA-RODARTE, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States 

Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 16-9507 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

On February 23, 2016, Elsa M. Murguia-Rodarte filed this petition for review of a 

final order of removal and requested a stay of removal pending this court’s review. Upon 

opening this proceeding, the court directed Petitioner and Respondent to address the 

timeliness of the petition for review in light of the dates set forth in the petition. After 

consideration of the parties’ responses, we conclude that the petition for review is 

untimely and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter. 

The filing of a timely petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional. 

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

must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(1). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 14, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-9507 Document: 01019585997 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 1 
2 

The parties’ responses to the court’s show cause order reveal that an immigration 

judge ordered Petitioner removed on December 23, 2013. By operation of regulation, 

this order of removal became final on January 22, 2014, when Petitioner did not appeal. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38 (establishing 30 days to file notice of appeal) and § 1003.39 

(providing that “the decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of 

appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is taken”). This petition for 

review, filed more than two years later, is not timely as to the final order of removal. 

Petitioner argues that her untimely filing should be excused because she was 

unable to file a petition for review before she was expeditiously removed from the United 

States in February 2014. As noted, the timely filing a petition for review is both 

mandatory and jurisdictional, and it is not subject to equitable tolling. Nahatchevska, 317 

F.3d at 1227. This court lacks any authority to extend the filing deadline or to excuse 

untimeliness. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2) (providing that the court may not extend the 

time to file a petition for review unless specifically authorized by law); 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(1) (establishing the time to file a petition for review, without authorizing any 

extension). 

Following Petitioner’s illegal reentry to the United States, the Department of 

Homeland Security reinstated the final order of removal on March 30, 2015. The 

reinstated removal order is itself reviewable as a final order of removal. See DuranHernandez v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1158, 1162 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003). However, this petition 

for review is also untimely as to the reinstated removal order because it was filed more 

than 30 days after March 30, 2015. 

Appellate Case: 16-9507 Document: 01019585997 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Though Petitioner claims she never received a reinstated removal order, the copy 

of her March 30, 2015 reinstated removal order provided by the government bears an 

alien’s signature. Moreover, and again, this court lacks authority to excuse the untimely 

filing. 

This petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely. 

Petitioner’s request to stay removal is denied as moot. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

by: Jane K. Castro 

 Counsel to the Clerk 

Appellate Case: 16-9507 Document: 01019585997 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 3