Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0654-02.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

Victorine Ankongbe ANGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-2303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2005.
    Decided Oct. 21, 2005.
    Robert L. Oswald, Noto & Oswald, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James Hunolt, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Victorine Ankongbe Anga, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000), “[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal.” 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). Moreover, it is well established that the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen is a final order of removal. See Rose v. Woolwine, 344 F.2d 993, 994-95 (4th Cir.1965).

Anga’s petition was filed thirty-three days after the Board’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen; thus, her petition was untimely. Absent jurisdiction to review the merits of this claim, we dismiss Anga’s petition. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED