Court Opinion

ID: 9952873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 20:00:59.485654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:18.450188
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10069   Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 03/20/2024     Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                  In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 24-10069
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      SIDINEIA DESOUZA SANTANA DASILVA,
      ALTAIR ROBERTO DASILVA,
      ITALO GUTIERRY SANTANA DASILVA,
                                                              Petitioners,
      versus
      U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                             Respondent.

                         ____________________

                  Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                       Board of Immigration Appeals
USCA11 Case: 24-10069     Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 03/20/2024     Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                 24-10069

                           Agency No. A220-358-981
                           ____________________

      Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Altair Roberto Da Silva, Sidineia DeSouza Santana Da Silva,
      and Italo Gutierry Santana Da Silva, natives and citizens of Brazil,
      appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirm-
      ing the Immigration Judge’s order of removal from the United
      States. The 30-day statutory time limit required them to file a no-
      tice of appeal from the BIA’s final order of removal entered on No-
      vember 21, 2023 by December 21, 2023. INA § 242(b)(1)-(2), 8
      U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)-(2); see also Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d
      1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[A] petitioner has 30 days from the
      date of the final order of removal to seek review in our [c]ourt.”).
      However, the Da Silvas did not file their notice of appeal until Jan-
      uary 8, 2024.
             Further, the Da Silvas cannot claim any exemption or equi-
      table tolling. See Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 1043, 1045
      (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that the statutory time limit for filing a
      petition for review in an immigration proceeding is mandatory and
      jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling). Accordingly, the
      notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke our jurisdiction. See
      Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(1) (noting that a petition for review of an
USCA11 Case: 24-10069    Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 03/20/2024    Page: 3 of 3

      24-10069              Opinion of the Court                       3

      agency decision must be filed in the court of appeals “within the
      time prescribed by law”).
            All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No petition for
      rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other
      requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.