CLD-300 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4093

___________

OMOROVBIYE ODIGIE-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: November 1, 2012 )

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

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 Torture 
2

(CAT), claiming that she would face religious persecution if forced to return to Nigeria. 

The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and, by 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. 

See

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; specifically, she claims that the IJ’s 

adverse credibility determination was “irrational,” and that the IJ erred in requiring 

corroborating evidence. (Petitioner’s Br., p. 4-5.) We lack jurisdiction 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 BIA denied relief on August 12, 2011. OdigieHopson 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, to 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 

exceptions 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. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.