USCA11 Case: 23-11045 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11045
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JUAN JOSE HERNANDEZ DOMINGO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A098-801-117
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11045 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11045
Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Hernandez Domingo seeks review of the Department
of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) February 21, 2023 order reinstat-
ing his October 2005 order of removal. The government moves
to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Hernan-
dez Domingo has not filed a response to the motion.
The government argues that our decision in Jimenez-Morales
v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
821 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2016) has been abrogated
by later Supreme Court decisions and, thus, Hernandez Domingo’s
petition is untimely. Alternatively, the government argues that the
petition is premature as the reinstatement order is not final because
withholding-only proceedings remain pending. We need not de-
cide whether Jimenez-Morales has been abrogated because we lack
jurisdiction in any event.
If the reinstatement order was final when DHS issued it on
February 21, 2023, the petition for review is untimely and we lack
jurisdiction to consider it. In that case, the statutory time limit re-
quired Hernandez Domingo to file his petition for review no later
than March 23, 2023, which was 30 days after DHS issued the Feb-
ruary 21, 2023 reinstatement order, and Hernandez Domingo did
not file his petition until April 3, 2023. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)
(“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after
the date of the final order of removal.”); Avila v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
560
F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that an order of
USCA11 Case: 23-11045 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 08/09/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-11045 Opinion of the Court 3
reinstatement of a removal order is reviewable on appeal as a final
order); Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
677 F.3d 1043, 1045-46 (11th Cir.
2012) (noting that the statutory time limit for filing a petition for
review in an immigration proceeding is mandatory, jurisdictional,
and not subject to equitable tolling). If the reinstatement order has
not become final because the withholding-only proceedings are
pending, the petition for review is premature and cannot invoke
our jurisdiction. See Jimenez-Morales,
821 F.3d at 1308-09.
Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.1
1
All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.
