Case Name: Dilyara DOSMUKHAMBETOVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-15
Citations: 388 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 09-2274
Parties: Dilyara DOSMUKHAMBETOVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Dilyara DOSMUKHAMBETOVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-2274.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2010.
Decided: July 15, 2010.
Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Todd J. Cochran, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Dilyara Dosmukhambetova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Dosmukhambetova's claims and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). We accordingly deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Dosmukhambetova (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2009). To the extent Dos- mukhambetova challenges the Board's order of January 23, 2009, we note that she has not filed a timely petition for review of that order and thus we are without jurisdiction to review her claims. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). We accordingly dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Finally, 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART