Case Name: Rodolfo ROMERO-REYES, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-22
Citations: 231 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 06-3072
Parties: Rodolfo ROMERO-REYES, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Respondent.
Judges: Before MELLOY, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 541–541

Head Matter:
Rodolfo ROMERO-REYES, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Respondent.
No. 06-3072.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 14, 2007.
Filed: Aug. 22, 2007.
Peter Joseph Antosh, Morgan B. Koon, Garcia & Antosh, Dodge City, KS, for Petitioner.
Richard M. Evans, Susan K. Houser, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before MELLOY, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In 2000, immigration authorities charged Rodolfo Romero-Reyes as a removable alien. Romero-Reyes conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge denied his application for cancellation of removal because Romero-Reyes had not "established that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to Romero-Reyes or his family. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). Counsel for Romero-Reyes filed a notice of appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("the Board"), but he did not pursue the case. The Board dismissed the appeal as abandoned on July 22, 2005. Romero-Reyes subsequently obtained new counsel and successfully moved to reinstate his appeal. On appeal to the Board, Romero-Reyes argued that his prior counsel's ineffective assistance at his removal hearing denied him a full and fair opportunity to present his claim. The Board rejected this argument in a decision dated July 13, 2006.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), Romero-Reyes had thirty days in which to petition for judicial review of the Board decision. Romero-Reyes did not file the present petition for review until Tuesday, August 15, 2006. His petition for review was untimely, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to hear it. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review.