United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT December 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60108
Summary Calendar
ELVIA GATICA JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(A95 297 463)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Elvia Gatica Jimenez petitions for review of a 9 September
2004 Board of Immigration Appeals order denying her motion for
reconsideration of the BIA’s 9 June 2004 decision. The latter
dismissed Gatica’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order of
removal. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), Gatica had filed an
application for cancellation of removal, which the IJ determined
Gatica withdrew. After the BIA dismissed Gatica’s appeal of the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
IJ’s order, it concluded her motion for reconsideration was
untimely filed. Gatica has not filed a petition with this court
for review of the BIA’s 9 June 2004 decision.
Gatica reiterates the contention, made in her appeal of the
IJ’s order, that her application for cancellation of removal was
withdrawn by her attorney without her knowing consent. She does
not address the BIA’s conclusion, in its 9 September 2004 order,
that her motion for reconsideration was untimely.
An alien may seek review of a final order of removal by filing
a petition for review with this court within 30 days of the date of
the final order. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1), (b)(1) (2000). A
timely petition for review is a jurisdictional requirement;
accordingly, the lack of a timely petition deprives this court of
jurisdiction to review a BIA decision. Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS,
997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir. 1993). The BIA’s denial of an appeal
and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final
orders, each of which requires its own petition for review. Stone
v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394 (1995).
As noted, Gatica failed to file a petition for review of the
BIA’s 9 June 2004 decision dismissing her appeal of the IJ’s order
of removal; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider Gatica’s
contention that she did not voluntarily withdraw her application
for cancellation of removal. See Karimian-Kaklaki, 997 F.2d at
111.
2
We have jurisdiction to consider only the propriety of the
BIA’s 9 September 2004 order denying Gatica’s motion for
reconsideration of the 9 June 2004 decision. As noted, Gatica
addresses neither that motion nor the basis upon which the BIA
denied it; this has the same effect as if Gatica had not challenged
the BIA’s decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833
(5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,
813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
DENIED
3