Case ID: f-appx_537/html/0256-01.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

Gennadiy KARP; Tamilla Humbat Gizi Hasanova, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-1354.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 29, 2013.
    Decided: Aug. 8, 2013.
    Gennadiy Karp, Tamilla Humbat Gizi Hasanova, Petitioners Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, Nicole N. Murley, William Charles Peachey, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed in part, and denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Gennadiy Karp, a native of Moldova and a citizen of Azerbaijan, and his wife, Tamil-la Humbat Gizi Hasanova, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reconsider and reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Petitioners’ contentions, and conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging prior Board orders from which Petitioners failed to file a timely petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Next, after reviewing Petitioners’ claims relative to the instant order under review, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Karp, (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART.