Opinion ID: 1248260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Untimeliness of Skurtu's Complaint and Equitable Tolling

Text: Having determined that Skurtu's Complaint seeks review of an order of removal and that such Complaint falls within the purview of the REAL ID Act, we must now consider whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over Skurtu's Complaint, considering that it was filed more than 100 days after the BIA's February 27, 2007 decision. An alien must file a petition for review of a removal order no later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The timeliness requirement set forth in the INA [for filing a petition for review] is mandatory and jurisdictional. White v. INS, 6 F.3d 1312, 1318 (8th Cir.1993) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding that § 106 of the INA is a jurisdictional statute that specifies the time of review and that such time limits are mandatory and jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling); Sukhov v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 568, 570 (8th Cir. 2005) (The [aliens] have not asserted any error of law or fact in the prior panel's holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the untimely filed petition for review. In fact, the panel's holding was compelled by the statutory limits to our jurisdiction.); Hassan v. Gonzales, 180 Fed.Appx. 602, 602 (8th Cir.2006) (unpublished per curiam) (We dismiss the petition for review as untimely, because [the alien] did not file his petition within thirty days of the BIA's final order affirming the IJ's removal order.). The time limits for filing a petition for review are mandatory and jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. Consequently, we hold that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over Skurtu's Complaint, as it was filed more than 100 days after the date of the final order of removal.