223 F. App'x 417
5th Cir.
2007

MEI HUA CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60632

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

March 26, 2007

417

Michael Anthony Brown, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Patricia Ellen Hurt, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Mei Hua Chen seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied her motion to reopen removal proceedings. In April 2005, an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Chen removed in absentia. In March 2006, after two prior motions to reopen had been denied, Chen filed her third motion to reopen. The BIA denied Chen‘s third motion to reopen as numerically barred pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and also noted that, even if the motion were not number barred, it would be denied for failing to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Chen argues that the BIA erred in finding that she had not established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that, as a result, the BIA abused its discretion in finding her motion numerically barred.

As Chen previously filed two other motions to reopen, her third motion to reopen was barred by the numerical limitation set forth in § 1003.2(c)(2), which permits only one motion to reopen. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen‘s motion to reopen. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.2000). Furthermore, we agree with the BIA‘s observation regarding Chen‘s failure to establish a viable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Chen‘s petition for review is DENIED.

Quiser Ali KHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60270

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

March 26, 2007

George Jay Prappas, Prappas & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Saul Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Karen G. Gregory, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, Carl Perry, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Quiser Ali Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigrations Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the Immigration Judge‘s order of removal and denial of applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

An alien must file his petition for review “not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The 30-day filing deadline is jurisdictional. Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003).

The 30-day filing deadline began to run in the instant case on Wednesday, February 22, 2006, when the BIA issued its decision and wrote to Khan‘s counsel at his address of record, transmitting to him a copy of the decision. The deadline expired on Friday, March 24, 2006. See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 110-11 (5th Cir.1993). Khan‘s petition for review, received and filed on March 27, 2006, was untimely. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction. See id. at 111-13; Guirguis v. INS, 993 F.2d 508, 509-10 (5th Cir.1993); see also Navarro-Miranda, 330 F.3d at 676.

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

Notes

*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.