Case: 19-12403 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-12403 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. A098-380-576 JITESHKUMAR ISHVARLAL PATEL, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (November 26, 2019) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jiteshkumar Patel seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings after being denied Case: 19-12403 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 2 of 5 cancellation of removal and a waiver of grounds of inadmissibility. The government has moved for summary denial of Patel’s petition for review and to stay the briefing schedule. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 We review the BIA’s decision on a discretionary motion to reopen under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001). To the extent that the BIA’s decision relied on a legal determination, we review the decision de novo. Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 2007). Our jurisdiction over appeals contesting the denial of cancellation of removal and waiver of inadmissibility is limited by the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Under those provisions, our Court lacks jurisdiction to review 1 We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 2 Case: 19-12403 Date Filed: 11/26/2019 Page: 3 of 5 any judgment regarding the granting of relief under either 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, which governs cancellation of removal, or 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i), which governs waivers of inadmissibility. See id. However, we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that a motion to reopen is untimely and, by implication, not subject to equitable tolling. Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2154-55 (2015). We also retain jurisdiction to review constitutional and legal questions. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1231 (11th Cir. 2013). Nonetheless, a petitioner may not create jurisdiction “simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in [question of law] garb.” Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). If we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal due to a jurisdiction-stripping provision in the INA, we also lack jurisdiction to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals