FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 5, 2007 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- 15342 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 930- 496 H E RN A C H A R L E S , 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

a D 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

_________________________ ( Ju n e 5, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: H er na Cha r l e s , a na t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of H a i t i , pe t i t i on s thi s Court f orre vi ew of the de c i s i on of

the B oa r d o f Im m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e c ons i de ri t s a f

f i r m a nc e of

he rr e m ova l or de r , w hi c h w as ba s e d on a de ni a l of2

c a nc e l l a t i on of

he rr e m ova l
. O n M a r c h 24, 200 6 , t h e B IA uphe l d the I m m i gr a t i on J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e n i a l o f c a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l , p ur s ua ntt o 8 U
. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) , a n d d i s mi s s e d h e r ap p e a l
. Ch a r l e s f i l e d n o p e t i t i o n f

o r r e v i e w of the B I A ’ s di s m i s s a l or de ri n thi s C our t . O n A pr i l 21, 2006, C ha r l e s f i l e d a m ot i on t o r e c ons i der the r e m ova l or de r , a r gui ng tha tthe I J ha d f a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe
e xc e s s i ve ha r ds hi p on he rc hi l dr e n tha the rr e m ova l w oul d caus e . O n S e pt e m be r6, 2006, the B I A de ni e d the m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . C ha r l e s the n fi l ed t h i s pe t i t i on f or
re vi ew fr om the deni al of h erm ot i on t o rec on si der. W e deny the pet i t i on i n p ar t
a n d d is m is s th e p e titio n , f o rla c k o f

ju r is d ic tio n , in p a r t. W e a r e “o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rj u r is d ic tio n s u a s p o n te
w henever i tm ay be l ac ki ng . ” C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F
. 3d 11 73 , 1 1 7 9 (11 th C i r. 2004) ( i nt e r na l qu o t a t i on om i tt e d)
. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove ra “ f i na l or de rof
r e m o v a l , ” s o l o n g a s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s f

i l e d wi th i n 3 0 d a y s . I NA § 242( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) , 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1252( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ; S t one v. I N S , 514 U
. S
. 386, 3 9 4
- 9 5 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( p r o v id i n g t h a t “d e p o r ta tio n o r d e r s a r e to b e r e v ie w e d in a tim e ly f a s hi on a f

t e ri s s ua nc e , i r r e s pe c t i ve of the l a t e rf

i l i ng of a m ot i on t o r e ope n or
r e c ons i de r ” )
. A n or de rof r e m ova l beco m es f

i na l upon, i nt e ra l i a , the di s m i s s a l of
a n appe a l by the B I A
. S e e 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1241. 1( a )
. A pe t i t i o n er’ s f i l i ng of a m ot i on t o r e c o n s i d e r d o e s n o t t o l l th e s t a tu t o r y t i me t o p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w . ” St one , 514 U
. S
. at39 4. “ [T ] he st atuto ry l i m i tfor f i l i ng a pet i t i on for r evi ew i n anAs for Charles’s argument concerningthe discre tionary denial of c ance llation of 1 remov a l, w elike wi sela c k ju ri sdic tio n toreview theB IA’ s p ure ly dis c retio na

ry de c isi on s, bo th that a petitioner did not mee t § 1229b(b)(1) (D)’ s hardship standard, , and that a petition was not entitled to canc ellation of removal under § 1229b. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (D); Ma rtinez v. U.S. Att’y

Gen., 446 F .3d 1219, 1222-23 (11th Cir. 2006). 3 i m m i gr a t i on pr oc e e di ng i s ‘ m a nda t ory an d j ur i s di c t i ona l , ’ [ a nd, the r e f or e , ] i ti s not
s u b je c t to e q u itab le t o l l i n g . ” D a k a n e v . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 2 n .3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o tin g S to n e , 5 1 4 U .S . a t 4 0 5 )
. B e c a us e C ha r l e s di d notf i l e he rpe t i t i on forr e vi e w w i thi n 30 da y s of the B IA ’ s M ar ch 2 4 , 2 0 06 deci si on , and b ec ause the fi l i ng of a m ot i on t o rec on si der do es no tt ol l thi s s t atut o ry ti m e- peri od , w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the M ar ch 24, 2006 de c i s i on a nd the r e fo re d i s m i s s the pe t i t i on a s i tr e l a t e s t o tha tde c i s i on. 1 A l tho ug h w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’s S ept em ber 6, 20 06 order denyi ng reco n sid er at i on , C harl es has aband on ed any c l ai m of error a s t o t hatorder by fa i l i ng t o rai se any a rgum entabou ti ti n h erbri ef
. T here fore , a s to thatorder, the pe t i t i on i s de ni e d. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D D EN I ED I N PA R T.