Case Name: Mazhar KHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-29
Citations: 431 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 10-2269
Parties: Mazhar KHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
Mazhar KHAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-2269.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2011.
Decided: April 29, 2011.
Mazhar Khan, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul Thomas Cygnarowicz, Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mazhar Khan, 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 the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (2010). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Khan (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.
We have limited our review to the Board's denial of Khan's motion to reconsider. Although Khan raises issues in his informal brief pertaining to the Board's December 10, 2009 decision, which upheld the immigration judge's denial of Khan's motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction over these claims as Khan did not file a timely petition for review of that decision. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).