Julio Alberto Quintanilla- Guillen; Nuvia Dinora Juarez De Quintanilla v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO ALBERTO QUINTANILLA-
GUILLEN; NUVIA DINORA JUAREZ
DE QUINTANILLA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71560
Agency Nos. A095-667-797
A95-667–796
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 5, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Julio Quintanilla-Guillen and his wife are natives and citizens of El
Salvador. They petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
FILED
NOV 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

applications for asylum and requests for withholding of removal and/or
Convention Against Torture protection. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We dismiss the petition.
A petition for review “must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of
the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). This limited filing period is
mandatory and jurisdictional. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). Petitioners
bear the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
Here, the BIA’s order and cover letter are dated March 10, 2008, so the
petition for review had to be filed by April 9, 2008. Petitioners filed their petition
on April 14, 2008—five days late. They claim that the filing was timely because
they did not receive notice of the decision until March 13, 2008 and the 30-day
filing period began when the BIA mailed its decision. Their only evidence of the
later mailing date is a copy of an unaddressed envelope.
Petitioners are correct that the period for filing a petition for review begins
when the BIA mails its decision. Yepremyan v. Holder, 614 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th
Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, their claim is not supported by the record. We presume
that the BIA mails its decision on the date written on the cover letter that
accompanies its order. Id.

-- 2 of 3 --

Here, the photocopy of an unaddressed envelope that Petitioners provided is
insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the BIA mailed the order on the
date indicated on the cover letter for two reasons. First, there is no way of
knowing whether the order and cover letter were inside the envelope. Second, it is
unusual that the envelope is not addressed to anyone, and without some identifying
information, there is no way of knowing to whom the BIA sent the envelope.
Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for want of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --