FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 6, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 16543 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 96- 270- 299 E D I N S O N S I E R R A - E S P I T A , P e titio n e r ,

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 ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 6, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E di ns on S i e rr a - E s pi t ape t i t i ons thi s C ourtf orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( B I A ’s ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

its d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n t o r e o p e n p r o c e e d i n g s , i n w h i c h h e w a s d e n i e da s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum an orD e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt ( C A T ) , 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 5 8 , 1 2 3 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ; 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 ( c ) . W e “a r e o b lig a te dto in q u ir e in to s ub je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u as p o n te w henever i tm aybe l ac ki ng . ” Cadet v. B ul ger , 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). W hi l e w e genera l l y have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew fi nal o r d e r s o f r e m o v a l, th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w m u s t b e f

ile dw ith in3 0 d ay s o f

th e d a te o f th e f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) . S i nce the st atut ory l i m i tfor f i l i ng a pet i t i on for r evi ew i n an i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ng i s m anda t orya nd j ur i s di c t i ona l , i ti s not s ubj e c tt o e qui t abl e t ol l i ng. F urthe rm or e , the f i l i ng de a dl i ne i s not su sp en d edo r t o l l edb y th e factth at[th e p et i t i o n er] fi l eda [t i m el y] m ot i on t o r e ope n the r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . . . a f t e ri s s uanc e of

the f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l. D akane v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 371 F . 3d 771, 773 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot a t i ons and c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T he B I A ’ s f

i na l or de rof

r e m ova l i n thi s c a s e w a s f i l e d on F e bruary15, 20 06 , w hen the B IA sum m ar i l y di sm i ss ed S i erra -E spi t a’ s app ea l of the IJ ’ s deni al o f a s y lu m r e lie f

. See 8 C . F . R . § 1241. 1( a ) ( pr ovi di ng “ [ a ] n or de rof r e m ova l m a de3

bythe i m m i gr a t i on j udge a tthe c onc l us i on of pr oc e e di ngs unde rs e c t i on 240 of the A ctshal l becom e f

i nal . . . [u] po n d i sm i ss alof an appeal by the [B IA ] ). T he B IA d e n ie dS ie rr a - E s p ita ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n o n A u g u s t 3 , 2 0 0 6 , an dS ie rr a - E s p itad id notf i l e ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

tha tor de r . A l though S i e rr a - E s pi t af i l e d am ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the B I A ’ s de ni a l of

the m ot i on t o r e ope n, the f i l i ng di d not to ll th e lim ita tio n s p e r io df o rf ilin g ap e titio n f

o rr e v ie w in th is C o u rt. See D akane , 371 F . 3d a t773 n. 3. S i e rr a - E s pi t af i l e d hi s pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w on D e c e m be r20, 2 0 0 6 , w h ic h w a s m o r e th an 3 0 d a y s a f te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l an dits de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. A c c or di ngl y , t o the e xt e ntS i e rr a - E s pi t aa r gue s the B I A e rr e din a f

f irm in g th e I J ’s d e n ia l o f a s y lu m r e lie f

o rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n , w e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e c la im s b e c au s e S ie rr a - E s p itad idn o t f ile t i m el y pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew . H ence , the on l y i ss ue on appeali n thi s c as e i s w hether the B I A abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S i e rr a - E s pi t a ’ s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rthe d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . In hi s bri ef

, S i erra -E spi t a argues he s ho ul d h ave r ec ei ved asy l um and that th e m o tio n to r e o p e n w a s in c o rr e c tlyd e n ie d , b u t d o e s n o t p r e s e n t an ya r g u m e n ts r e g a r d in g th e m o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . B yf a ilin g to a r g u e th e m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rin h is b r ie f , S ie rr a - E s p itah a s ab an d o n e dth is is s u e . See Me ndoz a v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 3 2 7 F .3 d1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 6 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( s ta tin g th e r e s p o n d e n t ab an d o n e dh is4

C AT c l a i m b e c au s e h e d i dn o tr a i s e i ti n h i s b r i e f o n ap p e a l ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yS i e rr a - E s p i t a ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.