Magtanong v. Gonzales
| Decision Date | 23 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-70019.,07-70019. |
| Citation | 494 F.3d 1190 |
| Parties | Israel Vianzon MAGTANONG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Nicholas W. Marchi, Seattle, WA, for petitioner Israel Vianzon Magtanong.
Dalin R. Holyoak, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for the respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A45-229-550.
Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, RONALD M. GOULD and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Israel Vianzon Magtanong, a native and citizen of the Philippines, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen or reconsider removal proceedings. We consider whether Magtanong's petition for review may be deemed timely filed.
A petition for review "must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Magtanong's attorney used the carrier DHL to send the petition for review by overnight delivery 29 days after the final order of removal, but the petition did not arrive and was not filed in this court until 31 days after the final order of removal.
The provision establishing the 30-day filing period is mandatory and jurisdictional, see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995), because it is imposed by statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); cf. United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 936-37 (9th Cir.2007). A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or waived, see Sadler, 480 F.3d at 933-34, and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a rule. See Bowles v. Russell, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366-67, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Magtanong has not shown that he filed his petition for review within the statutory 30-day filing period, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and he has failed to present tangible evidence that the petition arrived before or on the thirtieth day. Cf. Sheviakov v. INS, 237 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review for want of jurisdiction and deny all pending motions as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
DISMISSED.
* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vega-Anguiano v. Barr
...The thirty-day deadline rule is "mandatory and jurisdictional, because it is imposed by statute." Magtanong v. Gonzales , 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Under § 1252(b)(1), our court lacks jurisdiction to review untimely challenges to removal orders.Veg......
-
Alonso-Juarez v. Garland
...that establishes the thirty-day filing deadline for petitions like Alonso's, is jurisdictional. See, e.g., Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007). Alonso agrees that the thirtyday filing deadline is no longer jurisdictional, but still disagrees that his petition was unti......
-
Massis v. Mukasey
...is a statutory limit on the Court's power, it is jurisdictional, not merely mandatory. 509 F.3d at 112 (citing Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir.2007)); see also Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 102, 117-19 (2d Cir.2008) (finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over a......
-
United States v. Osorio, Case No. 17-CR-00507-LHK
...& Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908)). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. See Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007). Therefore, regardless of whether Defendant actually appeared and participated in the hearing, Defendant's "hearing [was] vo......