Case Name: Juan Fernando VILLALON-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-02
Citations: 581 F. App'x 364
Docket Number: No. 13-60589
Parties: Juan Fernando VILLALON-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 364–364

Head Matter:
Juan Fernando VILLALON-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-60589
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 2, 2014.
Juan Fernando Villalon-Rodriguez, Pearsall, TX, pro se.
Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Fernando Villalon-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, was initially ordered removed in 2009 on the basis that he previously was convicted of an aggravated felony and of two crimes involving moral turpitude that did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. In 2011, he returned to the United States without authorization, and the Department of Homeland Security determined that he was subject to removal through reinstatement of the 2009 order of removal. Villalon-Rodriguez filed a petition for review of the reinstatement order.
Reinstatement of a deportation order constitutes a final order and, thus, a petition for review from that order must be filed within 30 days. See Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 2002); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). A timely petition for review is a jurisdictional requirement. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); see Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003).
The record supports, and Villalon-Rodriguez does not dispute, that his petition for review was filed more than 30 days after the reinstatement notice was issued. Thus, his petition for review is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction. See Stone, 514 U.S. at 386, 115 S.Ct. 1537; Ojedar-Terrazas, 290 F.3d at 295; § 1252(b)(1).
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; MOTION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF OUT OF TIME DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.