Trevaun Lloyd Mowatt v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 14-14817 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 8, 2015.
Download PDF
Case: 15-12515 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-12515 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A055-569-825 TREVAUN LLOYD MOWATT, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (January 7, 2016) Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-12515 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Trevaun Mowatt seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings, which was based on his ability to adjust his status after his marriage to a United States citizen. Specifically, Mowatt argues the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion as untimely, that equitable tolling is applicable in his case, and the standard enumerated in In re Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002) violates the Administrative Procedure Act. After review, 1 we deny the petition in part and dismiss in part. We may review a final order of removal only after an alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to him. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). This requirement is jurisdictional, and thus, precludes review of a claim that was not presented to the BIA. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2006). We lack jurisdiction to review Mowatt’s claim for equitable tolling and his argument that Velarde violates the APA, because he failed to raise these arguments before the BIA and thus, did not exhaust the claims. See id. The INA provides an alien may file one motion to reopen removal proceedings, but “the motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). This 90-day time limit is subject to specifically enumerated exceptions, 1 We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Montano Cisneros v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1224, 1226 (11th Cir. 2008). 2 Case: 15-12515 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Page: 3 of 3 such as changed conditions arising in the county to which deportation has been ordered, or if the petitioner is a battered spouse, child, or parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), (iv). The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Mowatt’s motion to reopen, as the motion was untimely and met none of the statutory exceptions to allow for the untimely filing of a motion. Accordingly, we deny the petition in part and dismiss in part. PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
