2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-17-2006 

# W a n g v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 05-2450

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . R e c omme nde d C it a t ion
" W a n g v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 741. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/741The Honor able John C. L ifland, Senior District Judge of the United States District * Court for the District of

New Jersey , sitti ngby

desig nation. 1 N O T P R E C E D E N T IA L U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT No: 05-2450 XI NG GUO WANG
v. ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF T HE UNI TED STATES On Pe tit ion fo r R e vie w o f O rd e rs of

Re mov a l fr om t he B oa rd of Immi g ra tio n App e a ls (B IA No: A29-829- 847) Immigration J udg e: Danie l Meisner Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 15, 2006 Be fore : McKEE, GA RTH, Circuit J udg es and L I FLAND, Senior District J udg e.

* (Opinion filed: J uly

17, 2006)

OPI NI ON McKEE, Circ uit J udg e. XingGuo Wangasks us to review the B oard of

Immigration Appeal’s a ffirma nce of the Immi g ratio n Jud g e ’s or de r d e nyingre lie f f ro m r e mov a l. F or

the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e wi ll dismiss the petition for re view.2

Wang a rgues that his petition for re view should be grante d beca use the B IA err ed in af

firmingthe dec ision of the Immigration J udg e base d upon the latter’ s improper
r e l i an c e u p o nun s u p p o rt e d an d i r r e l e v an tc r e d i b i l i ty

d e t e r m i n at i o n s a s w e l l a s e r

r o r s th e IJ purportedly

made in deny

ing Wang ’s claim of political pe rsec ution and perse cution based upon China’s family

planningpolicies. Howe ver, a fter the BIA af firmed the I J ’s dec ision, W angfiled a motion for re consideration with the BIA rather than f iling a pe tition for reviewin the appropr iate Court of Appe als. After the B IA denied the motion for rec onsideration, Wang petitioned for r eview of

the orde r deny

ing r econside ration, but did not file a timely appea l of the I J ’s under lying or der. A p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w mus t be fi le d w ith in 3 0 d ay s a ft e r a fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l. 8 U. S.C. §1105(a) (1994). The BIA af firmed the I J ’s denial of

relief from re moval without opinion on April 4, 2003. Acc ording ly , that decision bec ame the f inal ag ency

deter mination. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e) (4) ( 2005). No pe tition for reviewwas filed f rom that final orde r within the requir ed 30 day s. Rather, on Apr il 23, 2003, W angfiled a motion for r econside ration of that Apr il 4, o r d e r w i thth e B IAa s k i n gth e B IAt o r e v i e wth e IJ ” s a dv e r s e c r e d i b i l i ty d e t e r m i n at i o n . T h e B IA denied that motion for r econside ration on June 30, 2003 based upon Wang ’s fa ilure to identify an err or of f act or law in the I J ’s ruling
. Th is p e tit ion

fo r r e vie w w a s th e n f

ile d o n July

28 , 2 00 3, we ll a ft e r t

he 30 da y s r e qu ir e d to
a p p e a l th e un d e r l yi n gf

i n a l o r d e r . A l th o u g hW an gf i l e d th i s p e t i t i o nf

o r r e v i e ww i th i n3 0 d ays of the B IA’s dismissal of his moti on for r econside ration, it is clear that he did not file within 30 day s of the “f

inal ag ency

deter mination;” the underlying or der of the B IA deny

ing his a ppeal ofWang pe titions for the r eview of a fina l order of

the B IA J une 30, 2003 dec ision. ** Howeve r, since the underlying f inal order was e ntere d on April 4, 2003, and no pe tition for revie w was f

iled within the 30 day

requisite time af

ter that unde rlying f

inal order , Wang ha s waived the issues prese nted in his brief. 3 the I J ’s denial of

relief
. “The requisite time for f iling a pe tition for reviewis jurisdictional, and ** a timely motion for rec onsideration does not re nder the underly ing f inal order non-final.” Stone v. IN S , 514 U.S. 386, 394-95 (1995). A ccor dingly , we have no jurisdiction to consider the pe tition for r eview. A ccor dingly , we will dismiss t he petition.