FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPT 26 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11727 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN os . A 95- 263- 055 A 95- 263- 056 R O D R I G O E M I G D I O R A M I R E Z , K A R E N V . R A M I R E Z C A N O N , B L A N C A L I R I A C A N O N V I L L A L O B O S , P e titio n e r s , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 26, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e t i t i one r s R odr i go E m i gdi orR a m i r e z , K a r e n V . R a m i r e z C a non, a nd B l a n c aL i r i aC a n o n Vi l l a l o b o s a r e n a t i v e s a n dc i t i z e n s o f C o l o m b i a , S . A. On D e c e m be r19, 2002, a n I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) gr a nt e d pe t i t i one r s ’ appl i c a t i ons for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . A cc ordi ng t o the IJ , P et i t i on er s s uffe re d pers ec ut i on atthe hand s of the F A R C “ on ac coun tof i m pu t ed po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” T he D e pa rtm e ntof

H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty( f

orm e r l ythe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ) appe a l e d the I J ’ s de c i s i on t o the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A pp ea l s ( “ B IA ”) . O n M ay20 , 20 04 , the B IA i ss ued an o rderconcl ud i ng that Pe t i t i o n e r s f

a i l e d t o s a t i s f

yth e b u r d e n o f

p r o v i n g e l i g i b i l i tyf

o ra s y l u m, w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al or re l i ef un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “ C A T ”) an do rd er ed P etit io n er s’ re m o v al. T h e B IA th er ef o re su stain ed th e D ep ar tm en t’ s ap p e a l. P e t i t i one r s di d notpe t i t i on thi s c ourtt o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s M a y20, 2004 or de r . I ns t e a d, the yf

i l e d at i m e l ym ot i on w i th the B I A t o r e c ons i de ri t s or de r . T he B IA deni ed the m ot i on on O ct ob er28 , 20 04 . O n Jun e 8, 20 05 , thi s c ou rt s u mma r i l ya f

f i rme d th e BI A ’ s O c t o b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 4 d e c i s i o n . Ra mi r e z v . U . S. A tto rn e yG e n ., N o . 0 4 - 1 6 1 5 8 - B B ( 1 1 C ir . J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 5 ) . th O n J a nua ry13, 2006, P e t i t i one r s m ove d the B I A t o r e ope n the c a s e pur s ua nt to 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) , o n th e b a s is o f n e w e v id e n c e in th e f

o rm o f tw o s ta te m e n ts3

th a t d e s c r ib e d th e “c o n tin u in g a n dp r e s e n t d a n g e r ” th e yw o u ldf a c e if r e tu rn e dto C ol om bi a. O n F ebruary15 , 20 06 , the B IA deni ed the m ot i on t o reopen as un t i m el y. Itfoun d i n add i t i on thatP et i t i on er s had fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e thatan e xc e pt i on t o the t i m e l i m i tappl i e d. O n M a r c h 16, 2006, P e t i t i one r s f i l e d the pe t i t i on be f

or e us i n thi s c a s e , s e e ki ng r e vi e w of the B I A ’ s F e brua ry15, 2006, o r d e rd e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e o p e n . P e t i t i one r s c ont e nd tha tthe B I A e rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o uphol d the I J ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe yha d s uf

f e r e d pe r s e c ut i on f

orthe i rpol i t i c a l opi ni on a tthe ha nds of the F A R C . I n r e s p o n s e , th e A tto rn e yG e n e r a l a r g u e s th a t ( 1 ) w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e vi e w the M a y20 de c i s i on be c aus e P e t i t i one r s f a i l e d t o f i l e at i m e l ype t i t i on f

or re vi ew , and (2) P et i t i on er s aband on ed thei r c l ai m s a s t o the F ebruary15 order because they r ai se no ar gu m ent s c on ce rni ng i ti n thei r bri ef . I s s u e s th a ta r e n o tr a i s e d o n ap p e a l a r e ab a n d o n e d . Se e M e n d o z av . U . S. A tty . G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 1286 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( s t a t i ng tha tthe r e s ponde nt ab a n d o n e d h is C A T c la im b e c au s e h e d idn o t r a is e it in h is b r ie f o n ap p e a l) . W e r e v ie w w h e th e rw e h a v e s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . B r o o k s v . A s h c r o f t, 2 8 3 F .3 d1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W h ile w e g e n e r a llyh a v e ju r is d ic tio n to rev i ew fi n al o rd ers o f rem o v al , th e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew m u stb e fi l ed w i th i n 3 0 d ays of the dat e of the fi nal order of re m ov al . Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”)4

§ 2 42 (b)( 1), 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(b)(1). T he st atut ory t i m e l i m i tfor f i l i ng a di re ct p e titio n f o rr e v ie w in a n im m ig r a tio n c a s e is “m a n d a to rya n dju r is d ic tio n a l, a n d is nots ubj e c tt o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. ” S t one v. I N S , 514 U . S . 386, 405, 115 S . C t . 1537, 1549, 131 L . E d. 2d 465 ( 1995) ( c ons trui ng the f orm e r90- da ype r i od f

orf i l i ng a p e titio n f o rr e v ie w u n d e rI N A § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 5 a ( a ) ) . A m o tio n to re op en fi l ed w i th the B IA do es no tsuspend the fi nal i ty of the un derl yi ng B IA o r d e ran dd o e s n o tt o l l th e r e v i e w p e r i o d . Se e I N A § 2 4 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 8 U . S. C. § 1252( a ) ( 1) ; c f

. S t one , 514 U . S . a t405- 06, 115 S . C t . a t1549 ( hol di ng tha tthe f in a lityo f aB I A o r d e ris n o t a f

f e c te db yth e s u b s e q u e n t f ilin g o f am o tio n to r e c o n s id e rp u r s u a n t to 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ) . P e titio n e r s ’ p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w s h o u ldh a v e b e e n f ile db yJ u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , to t i m el y app ea l the B IA ’ s M ay20 , 20 04 , order r ever si ng the IJ ’ s ordergrant i ng them a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . P e t i t i one r s pe t i t i one d us f orr e vi e w of

the B IA ’s d ec isio n o n M ar ch 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 . T h u s, th eir p etit io n is u n ti m ely a s to th e B IA ’s M ay20 , 20 04 , deci si on . A cc ordi ng l y, t o the ext entP et i t i on er s argue on appeal thatthe B IA erre d i n aff i rm i ng the IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng s, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der thos e a r gum e nt s , a nd tha tport i on of the i rpe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w i s di s m i s s e d. O ur s c o p e o f r e v ie w is lim ite d to th e B I A ’s F e b ru a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n to r e ope n. H ow e ve r , P e t i t i one r s m a ke no a r gum e nt s i n the i rbr i e f r e ga r di ng the5

m ot i on t o r e ope n. B yf a i l i ng t o a r gue thi s i s s ue i n hi s br i e f , P e t i t i one r s ha ve ab a n d o n e d it. A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n yP e titio n e r s ’ p e titio n f o rr e v ie w w ith r e g a r dto the m ot i on t o r e ope n. DI SM I SS ED I N PART, DENI ED I N PART.