FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 57 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 99 -5 54 -7 03 JOSE GILBERTO PEREZ-ESC ALANTE , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 1 4, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Jo se Pere z-Es cal an te see ks rev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’de ni al of h is m ot io n t o re op enhi s re m ov al pro ceed in gs , con te nd in g t ha t the BIA

erre d b y de nyin g tha t m ot io n. I. Pere z-Es cal an te , a Vene zu el ancit iz en , ent eredth e Uni te d S tate s i n 1 99 9 o n a n on -immig ran t v is a. In20 06 , aft er h e h adalr eady ov ers tay edhi s v is a, Pere zEsca lant e fi le d a n app li cat io n fo r as y lu m . The g ov ern m en t ch arg edPere zEsca lant e wit h re m ov ab il ity an d h e co nc ed edrem ov ab il ity . InJan uary

20 08 anIm

mig rat io n J ud ge de ni edPere z-Es cal an te ’s app li cat io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andrel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti onAgai ns t Tortur e, an d o rd eredhi m to be rem ov edto Vene zu el a. He ap pe al edto th e BIA. InJu ly 200 9 t he BIA d is m is se d P erez -Esc al an te ’s app eal . He fil eda m ot io n t o reco ns id er, wh ic h t he BIA d en ie d i n Oct ob er 2 00 9. InNov em

be r 20 09 , Perez -Esc al an te fil eda m ot io n t o re op enhi s re m ov al pr oc eed in gs to all ow h im to ap pl y forad jus tm en t o f st atus ba se d o n ane w m arri ag e to a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen . In J anua ry 20 10 th e BIA d en ie d t he m ot io n t o reo pe n a ndag ai n o rd eredhi m to be rem ov ed . Perez -Esc al an te fil eda m ot io n t o reco ns id er, wh ic h t he BIA d en ie d i n S ep te m be r 20 10 . In Oct ob er 2 01 0 P erez Esca lant e fi le d t hi s ap pe al . II. 2W e are ob li ga te d t o i nqui re i nt o s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on when ev er i t m ay be lac ki ng . Cad etv. Bu lg er, 3 77 F.3d11 73 , 11 79 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e rev ie w subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . San ch ez J im en ez v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 92 F.3d 12 23 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). “ To s eekjud ic ia l re vi ew of anord er o f rem ov al , an al ie n m us t fi le a pe ti ti on forrev ie w with t he fed eral ap pe ll at e co urt wi th in 30 da y s of th e BIA’s i ss uanc e o f th e fi na l o rd er.” J ag ge rn au th v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 32 F.3d 13 46 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( b) (1 ). “ [A] peti ti on er’s fi li ng to th e BIA o f a m ot io n t o re co ns id er a fi na l d ep orta ti on ord er d oe s n otren de r th e o rd er no n- fin al .” Ja gg ern au th , 43 2 F .3dat 1 35 0. Pere z-Es cal an te ’s dep orta ti on ord er b ecame fin al inJu ly 200 9, an d t he ord er de nyin g h is m ot io n t o re op enbe cam e fi na l i n J anuary 20 10 . The fi li ng s o f hi s m ot io ns to reco ns id er d idno t ex te ndth e 3 0 d ay s tha t h e h adto see k app eal . See i d. at13 51 (st at in g t ha t i t i s “ cl ear t ha t the fin al ity of [ an ] or de r of

rem ov al [is ] no t d is tu rb edby [the pe ti ti on er’s] fil in g o f a m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n” ) (em ph as is om itte d) . Becau se Pere z-Es cal an te di d n otfil e th is ap pe al un ti l Oct ob er 20 10 , ov er a year aft er h is fir strem ov al ord er b ecame fin al an d n in e m on th s af te r

3hi s s eco ndrem ov al ord er b ecame fin al , we do no t h av e juri sd ic ti on to he ar

arg um en ts rel at edto th os e o rd ers . 1 DISMI SSED I N PART, DENIED I N PART.

Although Per ez-Esca lante states in his brief that he is also appe alingthe B IA’s denia l of 1 his moti on to rec onsider the de nial of his motion to reopen, he makes no argument in his brief reg ardingthe denial of

his moti on to rec onsider. I nstead, he focuse s on why he believe s the BIA err ed in deny

ing his motion to reopen. A ccor dingly , any argument reg ardingthe B IA’s denia l of his moti on to rec onsider is aba ndoned. See A cce ss Now, I nc. v. Southwest Airlines, 385 F .3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (“ I f an a rgument is not fully

briefe d . . . we de em [it ] abandoned a nd do not addre ss its m erits.”) . 4