20-6 Lagos Rivera v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 013 573 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 6th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 NILSON LAGOS RIVERA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-6 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: H.P. Sean Dweck, The Dweck Law 25 Firm, LLP, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant 2 Director; Kristen A. Giuffreda, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC.

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

10 is DISMISSED.

11 Petitioner Nilson Lagos Rivera, a native and citizen of

12 Honduras, seeks review of a December 3, 2019, decision of the

13 BIA affirming a July 1, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge

14 (“IJ”) denying Lagos Rivera’s application for withholding of

15 removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

16 (“CAT”) following his reentry without permission and

17 reinstatement of his 2014 removal order. In re Nilson Lagos

18 Rivera, No. A206 013 573 (B.I.A. Dec. 3, 2019), aff’g No.

19 A206 013 573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 1, 2019). We assume

20 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

21 procedural history.

22 Although neither Lagos Rivera nor the Government

23 challenges our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an

24 independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the

2 1 scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise

2 and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either

3 overlook or elect not to press.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v.

4 Garland,

(2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Henderson

5 ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,

(2011)).

6 Our jurisdiction is limited to review of petitions for review

7 filed within 30 days of a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C.

8 § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).

9 We lack jurisdiction here. Lagos Rivera’s January 2020

10 petition for review is not timely from his 2014 removal order

11 or the Department of Homeland Security’s December 2017

12 reinstatement of that order. See

(b)(1);

13 Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th at 190–93; see also Luna v. Holder,

14

(2d Cir. 2011) (“Th[e] 30–day filing

15 requirement is jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable

16 tolling.” (quotation marks omitted)). The BIA’s December

17 2019 decision affirming the IJ’s denial of relief in

18 withholding-only proceedings does not constitute a final

19 order of removal because it does “not determine whether the

20 alien is deportable or order[] deportation,” or “affect the

21 validity of any determination regarding an alien’s

3 1 deportability or deportation.” Bhaktibhai-Patel,

at 190 (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, there is no

3 timely petition challenging a “final order of removal.”

4

(a)(1), (b)(1).

5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

6 DISMISSED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED

7 and stays VACATED.

8 FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 10 Clerk of Court 11

4