UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

GONZALO VALDOVINOS-BLANCO, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ICE, EL PASO, Respondents-Appellees. No. 13-2102 (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00384-JAP-LAM) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before LUCERO , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and BACHARACH , Circuit Judge.

While detained by the United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and awaiting a decision from th e Board of Immigration Appeals, Petitioner-Appellant Gonzalo Valdovinos-Bla nco filed a self-styled “Emergency

* After examining Petitioner-Appe llant’s brief and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral ar gument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 4, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - Motion for Withholding of Removal/Deporta tion” in federal di strict court in

New Mexico. He asked the court to assu me jurisdiction and order ICE to withhold his removal until a civil rights lawsuit he had filed in the Ea stern District of

California is resolved. The district c ourt determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to grant or deny the requested relief. Accordingly, it denied the emergency motion and dismissed the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 1 Mr. Valdovinos-Blanco appeals. 2 He argues that the di strict court failed to liberally construe or allow him to amend his “mislabele d” emergency motion as one seeking a stay of removal—a request over which he claims “t he district court does have jurisdiction.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 3, 4 (emphasis added).

We review the district court’s Rule 12(h)(3) dismissal de novo, mindful that “the jurisdiction of federal courts is limite d” and “there is a pr esumption against our jurisdiction.” Marcus v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue , 170 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal quotati on marks omitted).

1 That rule instructs: “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, th e court must dismiss the act ion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). See also Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt , 546 U.S. 303, 316 (2006) (observing that “subject-matter jurisdiction must be considered by the court on its own motion, even if no party raises an objection”).

2 We liberally construe Mr. Valdovinos -Blanco’s pro se a ppellate brief. See Cummings v. Evans , 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998).- 3 - Here, Mr. Valdovinos-Blanco, the part y invoking federal jurisdiction, has failed in his duty to establish that fe deral subject-matter ju risdiction exists. See id

. In a related vein, he does not support his conclusory appellate arguments with any pertinent legal authority. Cf. United States ex rel. Boot he v. Sun Healthcare Grp.,

Inc. , 496 F.3d 1169, 1175 (10th Ci r. 2007) (explaining that this court’s rule, that it will not entertain perfunctory arguments, “a pplies with special force to arguments seeking to establish our subject matter jurisdiction”). Mo reover, we are “unaware of any statutory or common-law authority permitti ng [a federal court] to intervene in an alien’s [ongoing] deportation proceedings to order withholding of removal,” R., Vol. 1 at 6, or to otherwise stay an alien’s removal while his appeal is still pending before the BIA until a separate lawsuit he filed is resolved. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Mr. Valdovinos-Blanco’s motion to proceed in form a pauperis is denied. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan , 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Senior Circuit Judge