Case Name: Oksana GRANILINA; Yevgeniya Granilina, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-02
Citations: 231 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 06-1905
Parties: Oksana GRANILINA; Yevgeniya Granilina, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
Oksana GRANILINA; Yevgeniya Granilina, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1905.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 25, 2007.
Decided: July 2, 2007.
Serghei Potorac, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Regina S. Moriarty, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Oksana Granilina, and dependent petitioner Yevgeniya Granilina, both natives and citizens of Russia, seek review of a July 20, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reconsider and reopen. Our review discloses that the issues raised by petitioners on appeal relate only to the Board's order of May 10, 2006, affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of relief from removal. Because petitioners did not timely petition for review of the May 10, 2006 order, we do not have jurisdiction to review it. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). To the extent that petitioners' contentions allege error in the Board's denial of the motion to reconsider and reopen, our review discloses no abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See Granilina v. Gonzales, Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ]; [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. July 20, 2006). 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.