Cetinkaya

Cetinkaya v. Gonzales

Good Law
225 F. App'x 495
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 2007No. 04-71254California515 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Coskun Cetinkaya, a Turkish national, appeals from two final Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) orders: (1) an August 30, 2002 order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of Cetinkaya’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, and (2) a February 18, 2004 order denying Cetinkaya’s motion to reopen the BIA’s August 30, 2002 order. 1 We deny Cetinkaya’s petition in its entirety.

I. August 30, 2002 Order of Removal

The time limit of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)— that a petition for review must be filed within 30 days after the final order of removal — is mandatory and jurisdictional. Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003). The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s order of removal on August 30, 2002. Cetinkaya did not petition for review until March 19, 2004. Cetinkaya’s subsequent motions to reopen before the BIA do not extend the deadline in § 1252(b). See Membreno v. Gonzales, *496 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Cetinkaya’s untimely petition for review of the BIA’s August 30, 2002 order is not excused by his purported reliance on a BIA website. He does not argue that the website was itself misleading; his opening brief…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.