Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying reconsideration. See Betty B Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 194 F.3d 491, 496 (4th Cir.1999) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction petition seeking review of order “summarily denying] reconsideration”). Turning to the underlying Board order, this court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders of the Board. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c); see Eggers v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 11 F.3d 35, 38 (4th Cir.1993) (“The finality requirement contained in § 921 encompasses the same concepts as finality in 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [ (2006) ].”)• Because the Board remanded the case for further proceedings, the Board’s order is not a final order. See Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 853 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order remanding an arbitration award is not a final appealable order when the order does not also vacate the arbitration award (B) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (C) holding that an order remanding  to an administrative law judge for further findings is not in general immediately appealable under 33 usc  921c (D) holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order (E) holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine
Output (English): holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine