Rigoberto Lobo-Zapata v. U.S. Attorney General

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 24, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15084
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A027-960-218
RIGOBERTO LOBO-ZAPATA,
llllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllPetitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 24, 2012)
Before CARNES, MARCUS, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rigoberto Lobo-Zapata petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

-- 1 of 2 --

Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen his case. The BIA denied that
motion as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the BIA’s final
decision and did not fall within any exception to that time limit. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (“[T]he motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the
date of entry of a final administrative order or removal.”) Zapata does not
challenge that conclusion in his brief to this Court, so he has abandoned any
argument that the BIA was wrong to conclude that his motion to reopen was
untimely. See Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1145 (11th Cir. 2010).1
PETITION DENIED.
The BIA also found that the motion to reopen was essentially a motion to reconsider.1
The BIA concluded that if construed as motion to reconsider, it was still untimely because it was
not filed within 30 days of the BIA’s final decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B). Zapata has
not challenged that conclusion either, so he has abandoned any issue about that as well. See
Lapaix, 605 F.3d at 1145.
2

-- 2 of 2 --