United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 17, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-61096
Summary Calendar
LYDIA SORIANO KANNO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A-78-317-711)
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner, Lydia Soriano Kanno, petitions this court to
review the August 3, 2004 order entered by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the immigration judge’s
determination that Kanno is subject to removal from the United
States and denied her request for additional delay to pursue
applications for adjustments of status and withholding of
removal. A petition for judicial review to delay a decision of
the BIA must be filed not later than thirty days after the date
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-61096
-2-
of the final order of removal. In the instant case, Kanno did
not file a petition for review by this court of the order the BIA
entered on August 3, 2004. Consequently this court has no
jurisdiction to review the decision of the BIA reflected in the
August 3, 2004 order.
On September 3, 2004, Kanno filed a motion with the BIA
seeking reconsideration by the BIA of its order of August 3,
2004. Finding the request for reopening untimely, the BIA denied
the September 3 motion on November 24, 2004. On December 7,
2004, Kanno filed a petition for review in this court of the
BIA’s order of November 24, 2004. Her petition for review by
this court is timely only as to the BIA’s order of November 24,
2004.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the specific
orders of the BIA and dismiss our review of the August 3, 2004
BIA order for lack of jurisdiction. As to the November 24, 2004
order of the BIA, we find that the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in such order and accordingly, we affirm the November
24, 2004 order.
DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.