[DO NOT PUBLISH]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