20-6
Lagos Rivera v. Garland
BIA
Conroy, IJ
A206 013 573
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 6th day of July, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 NILSON LAGOS RIVERA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-6
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: H.P. Sean Dweck, The Dweck Law
25 Firm, LLP, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
28 Assistant Attorney General;
1 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
2 Director; Kristen A. Giuffreda,
3 Trial Attorney, Office of
4 Immigration Litigation, United
5 States Department of Justice,
6 Washington, DC.
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DISMISSED.
11 Petitioner Nilson Lagos Rivera, a native and citizen of
12 Honduras, seeks review of a December 3, 2019, decision of the
13 BIA affirming a July 1, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge
14 (“IJ”) denying Lagos Rivera’s application for withholding of
15 removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
16 (“CAT”) following his reentry without permission and
17 reinstatement of his 2014 removal order. In re Nilson Lagos
18 Rivera, No. A206 013 573 (B.I.A. Dec. 3, 2019), aff’g No.
19 A206 013 573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 1, 2019). We assume
20 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
21 procedural history.
22 Although neither Lagos Rivera nor the Government
23 challenges our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an
24 independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the
2
1 scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise
2 and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either
3 overlook or elect not to press.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v.
4 Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Henderson
5 ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)).
6 Our jurisdiction is limited to review of petitions for review
7 filed within 30 days of a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C.
8 § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).
9 We lack jurisdiction here. Lagos Rivera’s January 2020
10 petition for review is not timely from his 2014 removal order
11 or the Department of Homeland Security’s December 2017
12 reinstatement of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);
13 Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th at 190–93; see also Luna v. Holder,
14 637 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Th[e] 30–day filing
15 requirement is jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable
16 tolling.” (quotation marks omitted)). The BIA’s December
17 2019 decision affirming the IJ’s denial of relief in
18 withholding-only proceedings does not constitute a final
19 order of removal because it does “not determine whether the
20 alien is deportable or order[] deportation,” or “affect the
21 validity of any determination regarding an alien’s
3
1 deportability or deportation.” Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th
2 at 190 (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, there is no
3 timely petition challenging a “final order of removal.”
4 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DISMISSED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED
7 and stays VACATED.
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
10 Clerk of Court
11
4