Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 13-60200 January 6, 2014 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

BURIM HALITI,

Petitioner,

versus

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 075 376 816

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Burim Haliti petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014

No. 13-60200

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider its dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen. He contends that the immi- gration judge (“IJ”) erred in denying his motion to reopen and that the BIA erred in affirming that denial. He contends that his removal proceedings should have been reopened because he never received notice of his hearing. On October 16, 2012, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Haliti’s motion to reopen and dismissed Haliti’s appeal. Haliti did not file with this court a petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal but instead filed with the BIA a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. Because Haliti did not file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s order dated October 16, 2012, this court lacks jurisdiction over that order. Stone v. INS,

, 405−06 (1995); Guevara v. Gonzales,

(5th Cir. 2006). This court’s jurisdiction therefore extends only to the BIA’s February 27, 2013, order deny- ing Haliti’s motion for reconsideration. Although Haliti filed a timely petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, he fails to analyze the BIA’s reasons for denying the motion, which the BIA provided in a clearly worded, succinct opinion. Haliti has therefore abandoned the only issue that is before this court, which is whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for reconsider- ation. See United States v. Scroggins,

(5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part.

2