Case ID: f-appx_159/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pedro Jose Monroy CLAVIJO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 05-1687.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 23, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 27, 2005.
    Howard T. Mei, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Richard W. Sponseller, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Pedro Jose Monroy Clavijo petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s ruling finding him removable and denying asylum relief. The Board’s order was entered on May 20, 2005. Monroy Clavijo’s petition for review was filed with this court on June 22, 2005, thirty-two days later.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000), Monroy Clavijo had thirty days from the date of the Board’s final order, or until June 20, 2005, to file a timely petition for review. This time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable tolling.” Id. As Monroy Clavijo’s petition for review was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to review his claim.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED