Case Name: Dennis JETOH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-23
Citations: 319 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 08-1946
Parties: Dennis JETOH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 319
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
Dennis JETOH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-1946.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 12, 2009.
Decided: March 23, 2009.
Dennis Jetoh, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Aaron Robbins, Office of States Department of Justice, Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Immigration Litigation, United Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. .
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Jetoh, a native and citizen of Liberia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reconsider. Because the petition for review was not filed within thirty days of the Board's order, the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Board entered the order denying Jetoh's motion to reconsider on July 28, 2008. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2006), Jetoh had thirty days, or until August 27, 2008, to timely file a petition for review. This time period is "jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms." Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). It is "not subject to equitable tolling." Id. Because Jetoh did not file his petition until August 28, 2008, it is untimely filed. Under Rule 25(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, filings are not timely if not filed with the clerk of the court within the time fixed for such a filing.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny as moot the motion to stay removal. 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 DISMISSED.