The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in MURADIN v. GONZALES, No. 03-74587, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Myron H. Bright, Harry Pregerson, and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge:
Aram Muradin, a citizen and native of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order removing him to Armenia. The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Muradin’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal but reversed the IJ’s decision granting Muradin relief pursuant to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm in part and reverse in part. Although the IJ did not enter an order of removal or make an explicit finding of removability, Muradin conceded removability before the IJ. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (noting finding of removability was based on petitioner’s concession of removability). Further, the IJ’s grant of relief necessarily requires the IJ to have already determined Muradin is removable. See id. at 1177. We therefore have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order of removal in this case because it followed an initial determination of removability by the IJ. See id. at 1178 (overruling Molina-Camacho v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2004), to conclude that “where the IJ has previously determined that the alien is removable but grants cancellation of removal, the BIA’s decision to reverse the cancellation of removal reinstates the initial finding of removability, which, under the statute, is effectively an order of removal.”) . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an order in MAGTANONG v. GONZALES, No. 07-70019, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Ronald M. Gould and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Israel Vianzon Magtanong, a native and citizen of the Philippines, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (”BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen or reconsider removal proceedings. We consider whether Magtanong’s petition for review may be deemed timely filed. 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). Magtanong’s attorney used the carrier DHL to send the petition for review by overnight delivery 29 days after the final order of removal, but the petition did not arrive and was not filed in this court until 31 days after the final order of removal. The provision establishing the 30-day filing period is mandatory and jurisdictional, see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995), because it is imposed by statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); cf. United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 93637 (9th Cir. 2007). A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or waived, see Sadler, 480 F.3d at 933-34, and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a rule. See Bowles v. Russell, No. 06-5306, slip op. at 8-9, 551 U.S. ___ (June 14, 2007). Magtanong has not shown that he filed his petition for review within the statutory 30-day filing period, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), and he has failed to present tangible evidence that the petition arrived before or on the thirtieth day. Cf. Sheviakov v. INS, 237 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review for want of jurisdiction and deny all pending motions as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. DISMISSED. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in WINZER v. HALL, No. 06-55327, a habeas corpus appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges, and Donald W. Molloy, District Judge.

MOLLOY, District Judge:
Appellant/Petitioner Marcus Winzer appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in VACATION VILLAGE INC. v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, No. 05-16173, a bankruptcy appeal. The panel consisted of Warren J. Ferguson, Stephen Reinhardt, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:
Appellees, the owners of real property near McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada, brought an inverse condemnation action against Clark County (County) alleging that the County’s Ordinances 1221 and 1198, which impose, respectively, height and use restrictions, constitute takings under the Nevada Constitution. We hold that our review of Ordinance 1221 is limited by the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in McCarran Int’l Airport v. Sisolak, 137 P.3d 1110 (Nev. 2006) construing Nevada state law, and, accordingly, find that Ordinance 1221, as applied to Appellee’s property, amounts to a taking. We remand for a calculation of just compensation in light of Sisolak. We affirm the . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in HAMILTON MATERIALS v. UNION CARBIDE CORP., No. 05-55976, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of Jerome Farris and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges, and Kevin Thomas Duffy, District Judge.

DUFFY, District Judge:
Hamilton Materials, Inc., a manufacturer of asbestos-based construction products, appeals the district court’s order dated . . .