Case Name: WU JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-21
Citations: 177 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 04-3934-ag
Parties: WU JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Hon. dennis Jacobs, and Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
WU JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 04-3934-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
April 21, 2006.
Richard L. Pomeroy, Assistant United States Attorney (Timothy M. Burgess, United States Attorney for the District of Alaska), for Respondent (on submission), of counsel.
PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH M. McLaughlin, Hon. dennis Jacobs, and Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as respondent in this case

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Wu Jiang petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying Jiang's motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. Those proceedings resulted in May 2003 in the BIA's affirmance of the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, based chiefly on an adverse credibility finding. We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
We lack jurisdiction to review the June 18, 2004 order, because Jiang's petition, which was filed on July 20, 2004, is untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (setting forth 30-day deadline in which to appeal final orders of the BIA); Malvoisin v. INS, 268 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir.2001) (noting that "compliance with the time limit for filing a petition to review the BIA's final order is a strict jurisdictional prerequisite").
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition for review. The mandate shall issue forthwith.