Case: 17-12249 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-12249 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-849-634 FERNANDA GOMES ARAUJO, MARCOS ARAUJO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (April 19, 2018) Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-12249 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 2 of 7 Pro se petitioners, Marcos Araujo and Fernanda Gomes Araujo (collectively, the Araujos), seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order of removal and the denial of their fourth motion to reopen and reconsider removal proceedings. The BIA denied the Araujos’ prior three motions, and we dismissed the petitions for review of those denials 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) (per curiam); Araujo v. U.S. Att’y Gen. (Araujo II), No. 15-10910, slip op. at 5 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2015) (per curiam); Araujo v. U.S. Att’y Gen. (Araujo III), No. 16-10562, slip op. at 2 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017) (per curiam). In their current petition for review, the Araujos seem to challenge the BIA’s: (1) order dismissing their appeal of the final order of removal; (2) subsequent orders denying their previous motions to reopen and reconsider the removal proceedings; and (3) the most recent order denying their fourth motion to reopen and reconsider. We dismiss the petition to the extent that we lack jurisdiction and otherwise deny the petition. I. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007). We also review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). However, we are obligated to 2 Case: 17-12249 Date Filed: 04/19/2018 Page: 3 of 7 review the existence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte where it may be lacking. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004). And such review is conducted de novo. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Furthermore, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003). II. First, a “petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C., § 1252(b)(1). This statutory time limit “is mandatory and jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling.” Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 677 F.3d 1043, 1045 (11th Cir. 2012). In that same vein, motions to reopen and reconsider removal proceedings do not toll the time period to petition for review of the final removal order. Dakane ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals