Bruce Sotonye Gogo v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 17-11698 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-11698 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-11698 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A028-654-967 BRUCE SOTONYE GOGO, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (January 11, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Bruce Sotonye Gogo petitions for review of an order affirming the denial of his motion to reopen. The immigration judge denied Gogo’s motion as untimely Case: 17-11698 Date Filed: 01/11/2018 Page: 2 of 2 and refused sua sponte to reopen his removal proceedings. We dismiss Gogo’s petition. We lack jurisdiction to review Gogo’s petition. Gogo argues that he was entitled to tolling of the period to file his motion because of a delay attributable to violating the order to depart voluntarily, but Gogo did not present that argument to the immigration judge or in his appeal to the Board. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We also lack jurisdiction to review the refusal of the immigration judge to reopen sua sponte its removal proceedings. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008). Although we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), our jurisdiction extends only to colorable constitutional claims, which are those that have “some possible validity.” Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2007). Gogo “has no constitutionally protected interest in purely discretionary forms of relief,” like having his case reopened, that would implicate his right to due process, so we lack jurisdiction to review his petition. See Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244, 1253 (11th Cir. 2008). We DISMISS Gogo’s petition. 2
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.
