Case ID: f-appx_167/html/0833-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Talibe SANGARE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-4199-AG.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 16, 2006.
    Parker Waggaman, Law Offices of Parker Waggaman, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
    Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, (David Kelley, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on the brief), Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: Hon. JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., Chief Judge, Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, and Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      . Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED.

Talibe Sangare petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

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 time limit “is a strict jurisdictional prerequisite,” and “[wjhen a petition is filed late, ‘[this Court] has no authority to consider’ it.” Malvoisin v. I.N.S., 268 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir.2001) (quoting Arango-Aradondo v. INS, 13 F.3d 610, 612 (2d Cir.1994)). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief, thus rendering it a final order of removal, on October 22, 2002. Sangare’s petition for review was filed on January 28, 2003, over 3 months after the final order of removal. As a result, his petition was untimely and this Court lacks jurisdiction to review it.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.