Michael Jarrett v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Michael Jarrett. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Petition DENIED.

Case: 12-10168

Date Filed: 08/20/2012

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10168
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A096-636-216

MICHAEL JARRETT,
Petitioner,
versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(August 20, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-10168

Date Filed: 08/20/2012

Page: 2 of 4

Michael Jarrett, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions this court for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his motion for
reconsideration of its order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) pretermitting
his application for adjustment of status. After a thorough review, we deny the
petition.
In 2001, Jarrett entered the United States from Jamaica on a C1 visa to work
on a ship as a crewman for ten months, after which he returned to Jamaica. Using
the same visa, he reentered the United States in 2002, but could not find
employment he liked and quickly returned to Jamaica. When Jarrett entered the
United States in 2003, he again entered on his crewman’s visa, but he did not plan
to work, nor did he work, as a crewman. Jarrett remained in the U.S. without
authorization after the expiration of his visa.
In 2005, Jarrett married a U.S. citizen and moved to adjust his status. While
his application was pending, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice
to appear, charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), and moved
to pretermit Jarrett’s application for adjustment of status because Jarrett’s status as
a “crewman” rendered him eligible for adjustment of status. Jarrett responded that
he was not in fact a “crewman” and thus was eligible to adjust status.
The IJ granted the government’s motion, finding that Jarrett was ineligible
2

Case: 12-10168

Date Filed: 08/20/2012

Page: 3 of 4

for adjustment of status because he was a “crewman.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c).
Jarrett appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the
appeal on September 26, 2011. Jarrett did not petition this court for review of that
decision. Jarrett filed a timely motion for reconsideration with the BIA, reiterating
his previous arguments that he was not a crewman. On December 20, 2011, the
BIA denied the motion for reconsideration. Jarrett filed a timely petition for
review in this court on January 11, 2012, arguing that the IJ and BIA erred by
finding him statutorily ineligible for an adjustment of status.
An alien seeking review of a final order of removal must file a petition for
review in this court within 30 days of the issuance of the final order. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1). The 30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Dakane v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir. 2005). The finality of a
removal order is not affected by the filing of a motion to reconsider. Jaggernauth
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 2005).
Here, Jarrett failed to file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s
September 26 order affirming the IJ’s decision that he was statutorily ineligible to
adjust status. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the September 26 order,
and we dismiss Jarrett’s petition for review to the extent that it challenges the
determination that he was ineligible to adjust status. See Dakane, 399 F.3d at
3

Case: 12-10168

Date Filed: 08/20/2012

Page: 4 of 4

1272 n.3.
Additionally, in his petition for review, Jarrett fails to offer any argument
challenging the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Therefore, Jarrett has
abandoned this issue. Because the denial of the motion for reconsideration was
the only issue properly before us, we deny the petition for review on this ground.
See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005)
(providing that issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned).
PETITION DENIED.

4