Opinion ID: 4521977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Before considering Anuforo’s substantive arguments, we must determine the scope of our jurisdiction in this matter. We review de novo our subject matter 2 Case: 19-11755 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 3 of 8 jurisdiction over a petition for review. Butalova v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 768 F.3d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 2014). Moreover, we review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s opinion. Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009). As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to review any of the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions leading up to the denial of cancellation of removal in March 2011, as the INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions bar review of a final order of removal against an alien who is removable for having committed a criminal offense and of the BIA’s determination that an alien does not qualify for cancellation of removal. See INA §§ 242(a)(2)(C), 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We have held those the same provisions bar review of motions to reopen that rest on such determinations. See Guzman-Munoz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 733 F.3d 1311, 1313– 14 (11th Cir. 2013); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003). We therefore dismiss Anuforo’s petition to the extent it challenges the IJ’s and BIA’s underlying decisions finding him removable as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and denying his application for cancellation of removal. However, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015), we have held that we have jurisdiction to “examine immigration claims that have been rejected pursuant to the statutory requirements for motions to reopen.” Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 871 (11th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, 3 Case: 19-11755 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 4 of 8 we limit our review to whether the BIA’s determination that Anuforo’s second motion to reopen was time-barred and number-barred, and whether his allegedly defective NTA requires us to terminate his immigration proceedings. See id. at 870– 72 (11th Cir. 2018); Tang, 578 F.3d at 1275.