CLD
- 300 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 4093

___________ OMOROVBIYE OD I GIE

- HOPSON, Petitioner

v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A075

- 872

- 051 ) Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin

____________________________________ Submitted For a Decision on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Disposition September 27, 2012 Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN and COWEN , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : Novem b er 1, 2012 )

___________

OPINION

___________ PER CURIA M Omorovbiye Odigie

- Hopson , a native and citizen of Nigeria , was admitted to the United States in 1996 and overstayed her visa. In 2000, she filed an application for asylum , withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture2 (CAT ), claiming that she would face religious persecution if forced to return to Nigeria. The Immigration Judge ( IJ ) denied relief, and, b y order entered December 10, 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board ) affirmed

. Odigie

- Hopson did not seek this Court’s review of that order. Approximately nine years later, on February 4, 2011, Odigie

- Hopson filed a motion to reopen the proceedings on the ground that conditions in Nigeria had worsened.
Se e

It appears, however, that Odigie

- Hopson seeks review of the IJ’s 2001 decision instead. Odigie

- Hopson ’s brief is devoted exclusively to arguing that the IJ abused his discretion in denying her application for relief ; s pecifically, she claims that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was “irratio nal,” and that the IJ erred in requiring corroborating evidence. (Petitioner’s Br., p. 4

- 5.) We lack jurisdicti on to review either the IJ’s 2001 decision or the Board’s 2002 decision adopting and affirming it

. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The B IA denied relie f on August 12, 2011

. Odigie

Hopson filed a timely petition for review of the BIA’s order.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (stating that a petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal) ; Stone v. INS

Furthermore, t o the extent that Odigie

- Hopson’s brief can be construed as seeking review of the Board’s August 12, 2011 denial of her motion to reopen, we note that she fails to challenge any specific aspect of that decision. Therefore, any such challenge has , 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (explaining that the time limit for filing a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional)

.3 been waived. See Bradley v. Att’y Gen. , 603 F.3d 235, 243 n.8 (3d Cir. 2010). In any event, it does not appear to us from the record that the Board abused its discretion in denying reopening

. As the Board explained, her motion was untimely filed, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) , and she did not demonstrate that one of the statutory or regulatory exceptio ns to the time limit applied in her case, see id.

For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the Government’s motion , and dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review

. § 1229a(c)(7)(C) (ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).

See Third Cir. L AR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.