Texte intégral
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11698
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A028-654-967
BRUCE SOTONYE GOGO,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(January 11, 2018)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Sotonye Gogo petitions for review of an order affirming the denial of
his motion to reopen. The immigration judge denied Gogo’s motion as untimely
Case: 17-11698 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 1 of 2
-- 1 of 2 --
2
and refused sua sponte to reopen his removal proceedings. We dismiss Gogo’s
petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review Gogo’s petition. Gogo argues that he was
entitled to tolling of the period to file his motion because of a delay attributable to
violating the order to depart voluntarily, but Gogo did not present that argument to
the immigration judge or in his appeal to the Board. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We also lack jurisdiction to
review the refusal of the immigration judge to reopen sua sponte its removal
proceedings. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008).
Although we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of
law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), our jurisdiction extends only to colorable
constitutional claims, which are those that have “some possible validity.” Arias v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2007). Gogo “has no
constitutionally protected interest in purely discretionary forms of relief,” like
having his case reopened, that would implicate his right to due process, so we lack
jurisdiction to review his petition. See Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244,
1253 (11th Cir. 2008).
We DISMISS Gogo’s petition.
Case: 17-11698 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 2 of 2
-- 2 of 2 --