FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 24, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 20 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -0 52 -1 97

SOVJET MAZE, BASILIKA MAZE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne rs , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Resp on de nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 24 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

So vjetan d B as il ik a Ma ze (c ol le ct iv el y Pet it io ne rs ) se ek

rev ie w of the Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (BIA) o rd er d en y in g t he ir m ot io n t o re op enan d reco ns id er. The Pet it io ne rs , nat iv es an d c it iz en s o f Alb an ia , sep arat el y en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s as no ni m

m ig ran t v is it or s. Whil e in th e Uni te d S ta te s, t he y fil edan affi rm at iv e ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m . Afterth ey each rem ai ne d b ey on d t he 1 ex pi rat io n o f th ei r vi sa s, t he Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y is su edno ti ces to ap pe ar, ch arg in g t he m

as r em ov ab le . They co nc ed edrem ov ab il it y an d fi le d a n am en de d app li cat io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andrel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re (C AT). An Imm ig rat io n J ud ge (IJ ) co nduc te d ahe ari ng , fou ndth atSo vjet ’s te st im on y lac ke d c red ib il it y

an d t ha t the Pet it io ne rs ha d n otsh own th ey were el ig ib le forasylu m , andord eredth e Pet it io ne rs rem ov ed . The Pe ti ti on ers ap pe al ed to th e BIA, wh ic h d is m is se d t he ap pe al . The Pe ti ti on ers di d n otfil e a p et it io n fo r rev ie w in th is co urt; in st ead , th ey fil eda m ot io n t o re op enan d re co ns id er b efo re th e BIA. The BIA d en ie d t he m ot io n a ndth e Pet it io ne rs no w see k re vi ew. Sovjet filed an asylum application as the lea d petitioner. B asilika proce eded a s a 1 derivative benef

iciary of that application. 2W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on as the fin al jud gm en t, u nl es s t he BIA h as

ex pr es sl y ad op te d t he IJ’s d eci si on . Rui z v. Go nz al es , 47 9 F .3d76 2, 7 65 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Here, b ecau se th e BIA d idno t ex pr es sl y ad op t t he IJ’s d eci si on , we rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si on on ly. W e g en eral ly revi ew th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n to reo pe n fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Mej ia Rod ri gu ezv. Reno , 17 8 F .3d11 39 , 11 45 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). W e rev ie w ou r subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Amaya -Art un du ag a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 46 3 F .3d12 47 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whe n ape ti ti on er d oe s n otarg ue anis su e o n app eal , th atis su e is ab an do ne d. Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 28 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). An al ie n m

us t fi le a pe ti ti on forrev ie w withi n 3 0 d ay s o f th e fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al . 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (b )(1 ); Dak an e v. U.S. At t’y Gen. , 39 9 F .3d12 69 , 12 72 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A m ot io n t o re op enor r eco ns id er d oe s n otaffe ctth e fi na li ty, an d wi ll no t t ol l t he ti m e p eri odto pe ti ti onforrev ie w, of anun de rlyin g o rd er o f rem ov al . St on e v. I.N.S
. , 51 4 U.S. 3 86 , 39 4- 95 (19 95 ). Inth is cas e, th e Pet it io ne rs di d n otfil e a t im el y pe ti ti on forrev ie w of t he BIA’s o rd er af

firm in g t he IJ’s o rd er o f rem ov al . Thu s, an arg um en t t ha t t he IJ erre d b y de nyin g a sylum , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , or C AT reli ef i s n otpro pe rly be fo re thi s co urt. Bec au se we lac k juris di ct io n t o re vi ew th e BIA’s d en ia l o f as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al , we di sm is s t he pe ti ti on with re ga rd s t o t ho se 3cl ai m s.

As t o t he de ni al of t he m ot io n t o re op en , whi chis th e o nl y is su e b efo re u s, th e Pet it io ne rs fai l t o ra is e an y ch al le ng e to th e BIA’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io n t o reo pe n a ndreco ns id er. The refo re, the y ha ve ab an do ne d a ll cla im s as to th at de ci si on , andwe de ny the pe ti ti on with re ga rdto th atord er. PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART, DIS MIS SED I N PART.

4