Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01686/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Barr
Respondent
Carlos Cazares Andrade
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1686

CARLOS CAZARES ANDRADE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: December 12, 2019 Decided: January 14, 2020

Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley B. Banias, BARNWELL, WHALEY, PATTERSON, AND HELMS, Charleston, 

South Carolina, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. 

Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert Michael Stalzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil 

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1686 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Cazares Andrade, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. For 

the reasons set forth below, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent Cazares Andrade challenges the Board’s prior order, which dismissed

his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision and denied his motions to remand and

for administrative closure, we lack jurisdiction to consider his arguments because the only 

order currently before this court is the Board’s June 10, 2019, order denying the motion to 

reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2018) (providing that petition for review must be 

filed no later than 30 days after date of final order of removal); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 

405 (1995) (noting that this time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed 

with strict fidelity to [its] terms”). Accordingly, we dismiss in part the petition for review.

We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and will 

reverse “only if the Board acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Narine v. 

Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on 

our review of Cazares Andrade’s brief and the administrative record, we conclude that no 

abuse of discretion occurred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2019). We therefore deny in 

part the petition for review. See In re Cazares Andrade (B.I.A. June 10, 2019). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1686 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/14/2020 Pg: 2 of 2