assistance. See also Zheng v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 98, 106 (3d Cir.2005). The Board also declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Sadiku timely petitioned for review of this Board decision in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the matter was transferred here for lack of venue. We will deny the petition. We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We are not authorized to review the Board’s February 5, 2003 decision, because the petition for review is timely, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (providing for thirty period for filing petition for review), only as to the March 28, 2007 decision. See Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Here, Sadiku did not seek review in this
holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case holding that in context of motion for reconsideration or to reopen congress envisioned two separate timely petitions for review of two separate final orders recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal recognizing that both final and nonfinal orders may be the subject of motions for reconsideration