Espinal v. Holder

Full title: Angel ESPINAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Jan 4, 2010

358 F. App'x 601 (5th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-60002 Summary Calendar.

January 4, 2010.

R. Scott Shearer, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Joan H. Hogan, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Daniel Glenn Lonergan, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, No. A72 521 308.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Angel Espinal, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). In his petition, Espinal asserts that he is challenging the BIA's denial of his motion to reconsider the order of the immigration judge ("IJ") denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his supporting brief, however, Espinal argues that the IJ erred in holding that he had failed to satisfy the evidentiary burden for the relief sought and that the IJ used an improper standard of review.

The government contends that the petition for review is timely only as to the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Because Espinal's petition for review was not filed within thirty days of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's decision, his petition for review must be dismissed as to those rulings for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003).

Although the petition for review is timely as to the denial of the motion for reconsideration, Espinal does not make any argument concerning the BIA's finding that he had failed to provide either additional legal arguments or new evidence, not included in his asylum application or prior testimony, upon which to persuade the BIA to reconsider or reopen the case. Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to that aspect of the BIA's ruling. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004). The petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part.