Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ask us to review the Board’s decision denying their motion to reopen. A denial of a motion to reopen is a final order that may be appealed to this court. Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1361-62 (10th Cir.2004). In their petition for review filed with us on January 22, 2013, petitioners did request review of the denial of their motion to reopen as well as their motion for reconsideration. But this request came too late to obtain judicial review of the motion-to-reopen decision, which had been entered August 31, 2012. Petitioners failed to file a separate petition for review from the motion-to-reopen decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (establishing 30-day time period for filing petition for review); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394-406, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (<HOLDING>). We therefore have jurisdiction to consider 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order (B) holding for the same reason that motion for appointment of counsel does not toll the period for filing a federal habeas petition (C) holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal (D) holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional (E) holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review
Output (English): holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal