Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02269/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2269

MARIA DA CONCEICAO SANTOS-NETA,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 15, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, Petitioner Pro Se. Elizabeth 

Fitzgerald-Sambou, Anthony Ogden Pottinger, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2269 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, a native and citizen of 

Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We 

have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order 

and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the motion as untimely and numerically barred. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2015). We therefore deny the petition 

for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In 

re: Santos-Neta (B.I.A. Sept. 24, 2015). We lack jurisdiction 

to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte 

authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the 

petition for review. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-

01 (4th Cir. 2009).*

Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the 

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 * To the extent that Santos-Neta challenges the Department 

of Homeland Security’s (DHS) refusal to grant her requests for 

prosecutorial discretion, the Board correctly noted that it 

lacked jurisdiction to review the DHS’s decisions. We likewise 

lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (2012). See VelozLuvevano v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting 

that the immigration judge, Board, and federal appellate courts 

lack jurisdiction to review the government’s refusal to exercise 

prosecutorial discretion).

Appeal: 15-2269 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART

AND DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 15-2269 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 3