Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionstatutemotion

Related Cases

Lemos v. Holder

Facts

Salvador Tapia Lemos was ordered removed to Mexico in 1997 following convictions for obstruction of justice and failing to report an accident. He reentered the U.S. without inspection and was caught in June 2010, leading to a second removal. After returning again, he was caught in October 2010, prompting the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate the 1997 removal order. Lemos's counsel filed a motion to stay the removal and rescind the order, arguing that his convictions were not for aggravated felonies.

Issue

Did the court have jurisdiction to review the reinstatement of the removal order given the untimeliness of the petition for review?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. r52(b)(1), a petition for review must be filed within 30 days of the final order of removal, and this time limit is jurisdictional.

Analysis

The court found that Lemos's petition was filed more than 100 days after the reinstatement of the removal order, which was well beyond the 30-day limit set by statute. The court noted that the time for filing begins from the date of the final order, not from when the order is received. Even if Lemos's counsel had actual knowledge of the order, the petition was still untimely.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Lemos's petition for want of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing.

Who won?

The Department of Homeland Security prevailed because Lemos failed to file a timely petition for review of the reinstated removal order.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Toure v. Barr

Avendano Hernandez v. Decker

Tuaua v. United States

Witkovich; U.S. v.

Oluwajana v. Garland