Sebastiao De Oliveira Lingordo, et al vs U.S. Attorney General

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 5, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-10066
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A078-595-552
SEBASTIAO DE OLIVEIRA LINGORDO,
NAJIA MAJED HILAL DE OLIVEIRA,
MARINA HILAL LINGORDO,
SALEH HILAL LINGORDO,
MAYARA HILAL LINGORDO,
lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioners,
versus
U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(November 5, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Sebastiao de Oliveira Lingordo, proceeding pro se and apparently seeking
to represent his family members (collectively “Petitioner”), seeks review of the
December 30, 2009 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying
Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the BIA’s June 30, 2009 removal order. We lack
jurisdiction to review the June 30 removal order—because Petitioner did not
petition the BIA for reconsideration within 30 days of the issuance of that removal
order—and therefore dismiss the instant petition for review to the extent that it
implicitly seeks review of that removal order. See INA § 242(a)(1), (b)(1), 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1); see also Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269,
1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “[s]ince the statutory limit for filing a
petition for review in an immigration proceeding is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional,’
it is not subject to equitable tolling.”). The instant petition is timely as it relates to
the December 30 order, however; hence, we have jurisdiction to review it. We do
so under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See Calle v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d
1324, 1328 (11 Cir. 2007).th
A motion for reconsideration, such as the one Petitioner presented the BIA
in this case, “shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact
or law in the prior [BIA] decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”
2

-- 2 of 3 --

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider that merely restates the
arguments that the BIA previously rejected provides no reason for the BIA to
change its prior decision. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. “Therefore, merely
reiterating arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute
‘specifying . . . errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to
reconsider.” Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)).
In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner failed to identify any errors of
fact or law in the BIA’s June 30 removal decision. Instead, he reiterated
arguments that he had previously presented to the BIA. Given that these
arguments did not address errors of law or fact in the June 30 decision, the BIA
did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1).
DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3

-- 3 of 3 --