11-1386 Lemos v. Holder

Listen to this article

Immigration
Removal; motions to reopen

Where an alien did not timely file a motion to reopen a removal order, his petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

“Tapia received the order on November 1. His signature is on the order; so is his thumbprint. Perhaps the Department did not ‘serve’ the order in the sense of mailing an additional copy, but that was not necessary when the order was issued in the alien’s presence. And whether or not his lawyer enjoyed formal service by mail, counsel had actual knowledge no later than December 9, 2010, the date on which counsel filed the motion to stay removal and vacate the order’s reentry. A lawyer who has actual knowledge of a removal order is not well placed to contend that lack of service defers any need to file a petition for removal. So even if we assume that counsel acquired knowledge on December 9, 2010, and that time starts with knowledge (as opposed to the order’s issuance), the petition for removal is still untimely. It was filed 68 days after December 9, 2010.”

Petition Dismissed.

11-1386 Lemos v. Holder

Petition for Review of Orders of the Department of Homeland Security, Easterbrook, J.

Full Text