Case: 17-11459 Date Filed: 05/10/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-11459 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A073-555-378 ADEYINKA SALAMI, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 10, 2018) Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Adeyinka Salami seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to sua sponte reopen Case: 17-11459 Date Filed: 05/10/2018 Page: 2 of 7 her removal proceedings. We, however, lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings, and we therefore dismiss Ms. Salami’s petition. I Ms. Salami, a native and citizen of Nigeria, entered the United States on or about July 22, 1983, on a non-immigrant F1 student visa. Ms. Salami had authorization to remain in the United States until June 13, 1987, but did not depart the United States by that date. On May 23, 1997, Ms. Salami filed an application for asylum, which was referred to an IJ for further proceedings. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service commenced removal proceedings against her in July 1997 through the issuance of a Notice to Appear. On September 26, 1997, Ms. Salami filed an application for cancellation of removal. At her merits hearing on June 1, 1999, Ms. Salami withdrew her asylum and cancellation of removal applications, and requested and was granted pre-hearing voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. Ms. Salami was ordered to leave the United States no later than September 29, 1999. As before, however, she did not depart the country as ordered. Sixteen years later, on August 18, 2015, Ms. Salami filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings. On July 19, 2016, the IJ denied the motion, concluding that it was untimely, and that Ms. Salami did not present any exceptional 2 Case: 17-11459 Date Filed: 05/10/2018 Page: 3 of 7 circumstances warranting sua sponte reopening. The IJ also construed Ms. Salami’s motion as perhaps asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but rejected the claim because Ms. Salami had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). On March 6, 2017, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling and dismissed Ms. Salami’s appeal. II We review de novo our own subject-matter jurisdiction. See Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). When the BIA issues a decision, we review that decision, “except to the extent that the BIA has expressly adopted the IJ’s decision;” in that instance, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. Id. III An immigration judge may reopen removal proceedings through either statutory authority or sua sponte authority. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien may file one statutory motion to reopen removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). This motion must be filed within ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals