Case Name: Taimur MAHMUD, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-07
Citations: 549 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 13-1197
Parties: Taimur MAHMUD, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
Taimur MAHMUD, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1197.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 7, 2014.
Taimur Mahmud, Petitioner pro se.
Aimee J. Carmichael, Jennifer L. Light-body, Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Taimur Mahmud, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Mahmud's contentions and find that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging the Board's order of November 5, 2012 from which Mahmud failed to file a timely petition for review, as well as any claims that were not properly exhausted before the Board. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1587, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Next, after reviewing Mah-mud's claims relative to the instant order under review, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Mahmud, (B.I.A. Jan. 14, 2013). 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.
DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.