# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued June 9, 2010

Decided July 6, 2010

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 3513

AYAZ AHMED,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney

General of the United States,

Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Court

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A076

‐ 773

‐ 886

O R D E R

Ayaz Ahmed styles this petition for review as a challenge to the Board of

Immigration Appeals’s denial of his motion to reopen, but his briefs focus exclusively on

the merits of the underlying order of removal, entered ten months earlier. Ahmed filed his

petition far too late to challenge the removal order, which this court lacks jurisdiction to

review. And since Ahmed has not argued that the Board erred in denying his motion to

reopen, we deny the petition for review. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

‐ 3513 Page 2

Ahmed is a citizen of Pakistan who entered the United States in 1999 and overstayed

his visa. He came to the government’s attention in 2003 when he tried to register for the

National Security Entry

‐ Exit Registration System, and shortly thereafter he was charged as

being removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). He admitted removability but feared harm

based on his political opinion; this prompted him to seek withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Ahmed asserted that he was a member of

one faction of the Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM) and was persecuted by another

faction, the Haqiqi Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM

‐ H). Most significantly, Ahmed said

that in 1997 members of the MQM

‐ H kidnapped and assaulted him, and made him promise

to join their ranks. The Immigration Judge found Ahmed’s testimony not credible and

unsupported by documentary evidence, and denied his claims. The Board agreed and

dismissed the appeal on November 6, 2008. Ahmed’s counsel did not petition for review.

Five months later, with a different lawyer, Ahmed moved to reopen his case. He had

missed the 90

‐ day deadline, but he invoked the exception for changed country conditions.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii). The Board found not only that he failed to supplement

his motion with the appropriate documentation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), but also that he

failed to demonstrate changed country conditions. The Board noted that two letters he

submitted from his friends in Pakistan were too vague, and a letter from his brother was the

same letter he had submitted in the underlying proceeding. Ahmed petitioned for review.

Ahmed suggests that a timely petition from any Board order gives the court

jurisdiction to review all of the proceedings up to that point, but his argument lacks merit. If

Ahmed wished to seek judicial review of the Board’s original removal order, his petition

was due within 30 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). But he did not file this petition until ten

months later. Because the time period to obtain judicial review of the removal order is

jurisdictional, no excuse is available. See Stone v. I.N.S.

, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Ajose v.

Gonzales

, 408 F.3d 393, 394

‐ 95 (7th Cir. 2005). Even a timely motion to reconsider does not

toll the time to seek review of the removal order, Stone

, 514 U.S. at 405; Asere v. Gonzales

, 439

F.3d 378, 380 (7th Cir. 2006), much less an untimely motion to reopen.

Although the court does have jurisdiction to review the denial of his motion to

reopen, see Kucana v. Holder

, 130 S. Ct. 827, 840 (2010), Ahmed mounts no meaningful

challenge to that order. He acknowledges it in the jurisdictional statement of his brief, but

adds nothing further. Instead, he devotes his briefs to arguing the merits of the underlying

removal order, challenging the Board’s determinations that he was not credible and that he

did not show past or future persecution. He has attempted to justify that strategy by

maintaining that Board, by discussing the removal order, thereby invited full review on the

merits. But the Board did no such thing; it simply recounted the history of the case as aNo. 09

‐ 3513 Page 3

prelude to its decision not to reopen the petition. Because Ahmed has not offered even a

hint as to why he thinks the Board erred in denying his motion to reopen, we agree with the

government that he has waived the argument. See Asere

, 439 F.3d at 380

‐ 81; Brucaj v.

Ashcroft

, 381 F.3d 602, 611 n.7 (7th Cir. 2004).

Given that Ahmed has not challenged the only decision this court has jurisdiction to

review, we D ENY the petition for review.