Alexander Cruz Ayala v. U.S. Attorney General , 201 F. App'x 701 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT            FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-11975                     OCTOBER 19, 2006
    Non-Argument Calendar                THOMAS K. KAHN
    CLERK
    ________________________
    BIA Nos. A96-100-388 & A96-100-389
    ALEXANDER CRUZ AYALA,
    LAURA EVELIN CORREA JIMENEZ,
    Petitioners,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    _________________________
    (October 19, 2006)
    Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Alexander Cruz Ayala (“Cruz”) and his wife Laura Evelin Correa Jimenez,
    hereinafter “Petitioners” when referred to collectively, seek review of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion for reconsideration of its
    order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of relief from
    removal. First, Petitioners challenge the IJ and BIA decisions denying their
    application for asylum and withholding of removal. Second, Petitioners argue that
    the BIA erred when it denied their motion to reconsider.
    I.
    By statute, we may only review “final order[s] of removal.” INA
    § 242(a)(1), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(1); Jaggernauth v. United States Att’y Gen., 
    432 F.3d 1346
    , 1350 (11th Cir. 2005). An order of removal becomes final “[u]pon
    [the] dismissal of an appeal by the [BIA].” 
    8 C.F.R. § 1241.1
    (a). “To seek judicial
    review of an order of removal, an alien must file a petition for review with the
    federal appellate court within 30 days of the BIA’s issuance of the final order.”
    Jaggernauth, 
    432 F.3d at
    1350 (citing 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(1)-(2)). This limitation
    period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Dakane v. United States Att’y Gen., 
    399 F.3d 1269
    , 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Stone v. INS, 
    514 U.S. 386
    , 405, 
    115 S.Ct. 1537
    , 1549, 
    131 L.Ed.2d 465
     (1995)). An order of removal “is not affected
    by the subsequent filing of a motion to reconsider.” Stone, 
    514 U.S. at 405
    , 
    115 S.Ct. at 1549
    .
    Because Petitioners did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s final order
    of removal, the merits of that order, as well as the merits of the underlying IJ’s
    2
    decision, are outside our jurisdiction.
    II.
    We review the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of
    discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    332 F.3d 1321
    , 1341 (11th Cir. 2003), cert.
    denied, 
    543 U.S. 917
     (2004). Motions to reconsider are disfavored in removal
    proceedings. See INS v. Doherty, 
    502 U.S. 314
    , 323, 
    112 S.Ct. 719
    , 724-25, 
    116 L.Ed.2d 823
     (1992) (discussing motions to reopen and explaining that such
    motions are disfavored because “as a general matter, every delay works to the
    advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United
    States”). “A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by
    specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision.” 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (b)(1).
    Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs on appeal, we find no
    reversible error. In this case, other than their assertions that the BIA’s conclusions
    regarding their case were incorrect, Petitioners did not raise any specific
    allegations of error in their motion for reconsideration. Since rearguing the merits
    of a case is not the purpose of a motion for reconsideration, the BIA did not err in
    denying Petitioners’ motion.
    Accordingly, the petition is denied.
    DENIED
    3