[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUG 10, 2006
No. 05-16337 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
Agency Nos. A95-220-948
JOSE MARTIN NARANJO ARANGO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(August 10, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Martin Naranjo Arango (“Naranjo”), a native and citizen of Colombia,
petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) removal order. In his appellate brief, Naranjo challenges only the underlying
removal order, arguing that: (1) he suffered past persecution by the National
Liberation Army (“ELN”), a group that the government of Colombia cannot
control; and (2) he had a well-founded fear of future persecution because other
persons under similar circumstances also would fear persecution. He also urges
that the IJ failed to consider that his cousin was murdered by the guerillas, and that
his life will be put at risk if he is deported. As we conclude we lack jurisdiction to
review the removal order, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.
The facts relevant to our jurisdictional analysis are straightforward. Naranjo
was admitted to the United States on September 6, 2001, as a nonimmigrant visitor
for pleasure. His admission permitted him to remain in the country until March 5,
2002. In November 2002, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)
issued Naranjo a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability under §
237(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), for remaining in the United
States for a time longer than permitted. After an evidentiary hearing, on January 8,
2004, the IJ denied Naranjo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the CAT, finding that Naranjo failed to establish that he had a well-
2
founded fear of persecution on account of a protected status, and that his testimony
was not credible.
Thereafter, Naranjo filed an appeal to the BIA, which dismissed Naranjo’s
appeal on August 2, 2005. On August 30, 2005, Naranjo filed a motion to
reconsider, which the BIA denied on October 18, 2005, finding that Naranjo did
not meaningfully specify any errors of fact or law in his motion because he did not
directly address the major inconsistency found by the IJ, to which the BIA had
agreed in its order. Because Naranjo had introduced new evidence with his motion
to reconsider, the BIA also treated the motion as a motion to reopen, noting that
although the new evidence highlighted continuing problems in Colombia, the
evidence did not aid Naranjo in establishing a prima facie case for relief. Naranjo
then filed this petition for review.
We are “obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte
whenever it may be lacking.” Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir.
2004) (quotation omitted). An alien seeking review of a BIA decision must file a
petition for review within 30 days of the BIA’s final order of removal. See INA §
242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). A petition for review is considered to be
filed when it is received by the clerk of the Court. Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A).
Moreover, “the filing of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider shall not stay
3
the execution of any decision made in the case.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(f). The
Supreme Court has ruled that the filing of a motion with the BIA does not affect
the finality of the order and “does not toll the time to petition for review.” Stone v.
INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1995).
Here, in order for us to have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision
affirming the IJ’s removal order, Naranjo was required to file his petition for
review by September 1, 2005, or 30 days after the BIA’s August 2, 2005 decision.
See INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). He filed no such timely
petition for review. And his filing of a motion for reconsideration did not toll his
time to seek review in this Court. Stone, 514 U.S. at 394-95. Accordingly, we lack
jurisdiction to review the petition to the extent that the arguments presented relate
to the August 2, 2005 decision.
As for the BIA’s order denying reconsideration, which was enumerated in
the petition for review filed in this Court, Naranjo only briefly mentions the motion
to reconsider in the “Summary of Argument” section of his brief, but he cites no
law relevant to a motion to reopen or reconsider and presents no arguments
challenging the denial of reconsideration. Accordingly, he is deemed to have
abandoned his arguments pertaining to the BIA’s order denying reconsideration,
the only order over which we could exercise jurisdiction. See Sepulveda v. U.S.
4
Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (finding that, where a
party fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
5