2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-24-2009

Perlas v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3016

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Perlas v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 955.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/955
IMG-116 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3016

___________

BERTA LILIA PERLAS,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

_______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Department of Justice

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A94-751-895)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin

_______________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 15, 2009

Before: RENDELL, GREENBERG and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: July 24, 2009)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

PER CURIAM

Berta Lilia Perlas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) final order of removal. For the following reasons, we will deny her petition. 
Although Perlas captioned her motion before the BIA as a “motion to 1

reopen/remand,” the BIA determined that it should be construed as a motion to

reconsider. Perlas does not argue in her petition for review that the BIA erred in so

treating it. 

2

Perlas is forty-one years old and is a citizen of Honduras. Perlas was admitted to

the United States as a parolee in October 1999. On December 16, 2002, her temporary

protected status was withdrawn, and, in August 2006, she was placed in removal

proceedings. Perlas sought relief in the form of cancellation of removal, which allows the

Attorney General to cancel the removal of a deportable alien if the alien can establish that

her removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to certain

members of her family. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

Following a hearing, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Perlas’s application on

the ground that she failed to make the requisite showing under § 1229b(b)(1)(D). By

order entered February 20, 2008, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision denying relief. Perlas

subsequently sought reconsideration, but, by order entered June 9, 2008, the BIA denied

her request on the ground that she failed to meet the regulatory requirements for such a

motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). On July 8, 2008, Perlas filed this petition for review. 1

In her petition for review and brief in support thereof, Perlas challenges the BIA’s

February 20, 2008 order affirming the IJ’s decision denying her application for

cancellation of removal. Specifically, Perlas argues that the IJ erred in finding that she

failed to demonstrate that her return to Honduras would result in “exceptional and
Perlas’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for filing a petition for 2

review of the BIA’s February 20, 2008 decision. Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization

Serv., 514 U.S. 386, 398-99 (1995). 

3

extremely unusual hardship” to her family. This Court does not have jurisdiction to

review the BIA’s February 20, 2008 order because Perlas did not file her petition for

review within 30 days of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (providing that a petition 2

for review must be filed not later than thirty days after the date of the final order of

removal). The petition for review was, however, timely with respect to the BIA’s June 9,

2008 order declining to reconsider its previous dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, this

Court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s June 9, 2008 order.

That said, Perlas’s counseled brief does not contain any argument whatsoever

pertaining to the BIA’s June 9, 2008 order. Rather, as noted above, Perlas’s brief focuses

solely on the BIA’s underlying order. Therefore, any challenge to the June 9, 2008

order—the only order we have jurisdiction to review—has been waived. See Chen v.

Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). Moreover, we have carefully reviewed the

record and conclude that, even if Perlas had challenged the BIA’s decision denying her

motion for reconsideration, the BIA acted well within its discretion in denying the

motion, as it failed to raise any new legal arguments or allege any changes in the law. See

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). 

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.