Opinion ID: 43679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: IJ’s Asylum Decision

Text: On appeal, the petitioners first argue that the BIA erred in its December 10, 2002 order affirming the IJ’s decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. We do not have jurisdiction to review that December 10, 2002 order as the petitioners did not file a timely petition for review from the BIA’s December 10, 2002 order affirming the IJ’s decision.4 While we generally have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, the petition for review must be filed within 30 days of the date of the final order of 4 We review de novo whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction. Brooks v. Ashcroft, 283 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2002). 9 removal. See INA 242(a)(1), (b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1). The statutory time limit for filing a direct petition for review in an immigration case is “mandatory and jurisdictional” and is not subject to equitable tolling. Dakane v. United States Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). The BIA’s final order of removal in this case was filed on December 10, 2002, and the petition for review was filed on October 27, 2004, which is more than 30 days after the BIA’s order was entered.