UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2382

HERBERT ANTONIO QUINTANILLA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: July 26, 2013 Decided: August 7, 2013

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, 

Jennifer R. Khouri, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Antonio Quintanilla, a native and citizen of 

El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider 

and remand. We deny the petition for review.

Quintanilla had thirty days to timely file a petition 

for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2006). This time period 

is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict 

fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 

(1995). The filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the 

Board does not toll the thirty-day period for seeking review of 

an underlying decision. Id. at 394. Accordingly, our review is 

limited to the propriety of the Board’s October 10, 2012 order 

denying Quintanilla’s motion to reconsider and remand. We lack 

jurisdiction to review the August 17, 2011 order dismissing the 

appeal from the immigration judge’s order and the April 12, 2012 

order denying the first motion to reopen. 

The Board’s denial of reconsideration and reopening is 

reviewed for abuse of discretion.*

 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013);

INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Narine v. Holder, 

559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 

 * Because Quintanilla submitted new evidence with the 

motion, the Board also construed the motion to reconsider as a 

motion to reopen. 
3

397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). A motion to reconsider asserts that 

the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The motion 

“shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors 

of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be 

supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We

will reverse a denial of a motion to reconsider “only if the 

Board acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” 

Narine, 559 F.3d at 249 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety 

days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). This 

time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to seek 

asylum or withholding of removal based on changed country 

conditions, “if such evidence is material and was not available 

and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous 

proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006); see also 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The Board’s “denial of a motion to 

reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to 

reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage 

of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the 

United States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 

2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The 

motion “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a 
4

hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be 

supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Such motion “shall not be granted unless 

it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is 

material and was not available and could not have been 

discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id.

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in denying reconsideration or reopening. The record 

supports the finding that Quintanilla did not show that there 

was an error of law or fact in the Board’s earlier decisions

that would warrant reconsideration. We also note that insofar 

as Quintanilla sought reopening by submitting new evidence,

substantial evidence supports the finding that he failed to show 

that his motion was timely and that the new evidence was 

previously unavailable and could not have been discovered or 

presented at his hearing before the immigration judge.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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 DENIED