Case: 18-10987 Date Filed: 11/21/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10987 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-849-634 MARCOS ARAUJO, FERNANDA GOMES ARAUJO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 21, 2018) Before WILSON, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10987 Date Filed: 11/21/2018 Page: 2 of 6 Marcos Araujo and Fernando Gomes Araujo, proceeding pro se, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of their fifth motion to reopen removal proceedings. The BIA denied the Araujos’ four previous motions, and we dismissed their petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction. See Araujo v. U.S. Att’y Gen. (Araujo I), No. 13-15489, slip op. at 5 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2014); Araujo v. U.S. Att’y Gen. (Araujo II), No. 15-10910, slip op. at 5 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2015); Araujo v. U.S. Att’y Gen. (Araujo III), No. 16-10562, slip op. at 2 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017); Araujo v. U.S. Att’y Gen. (Araujo IV), No. 17-12249, slip op. at 7 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2018). In their instant petition for review, the Araujos challenge the BIA’s denial of their fifth and most recent motion to reopen and reconsider. They also challenge the BIA’s order dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s order of removal, and the BIA’s denial of their first four motions to reopen and reconsider. To the extent that we lack jurisdiction, the Araujos’ petition for review is dismissed, and is otherwise denied. I. The BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider and motions to reopen are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007); Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). We are obligated, however, to review de novo the existence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte where it may be lacking. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 2 Case: 18-10987 Date Filed: 11/21/2018 Page: 3 of 6 1179 (11th Cir. 2004). Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Lorisme v. I.N.S., 129 F.3d 1441, 1444 n.3 (11th Cir. 1997). The Araujos’ fifth motion to reopen and reconsider is both time- and number-barred. From the date of entry of the final order of removal, a party has thirty days to file a motion to reconsider, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), and ninety days to file a motion to reopen, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Generally, a party may only file one motion to reconsider, 8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(6)(A), and one motion to reopen, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). While there are exceptions to the time and number limitations, none of them apply to the Araujos’ motion to reopen removal proceedings. The limitations do not apply to motions to reopen if the party is seeking asylum and can demonstrate “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals