Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Miller v. Gonzales, 04-2452 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2452 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jul. 26, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2452 MELEY MILLER, a/k/a Meley Ghirmay, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-711-409) Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2452 MELEY MILLER, a/k/a Meley Ghirmay, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-711-409) Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Meley Miller, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitions for review of a final order of the Board must be filed no later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). The Board’s order is dated October 20, 2004. Thus Miller’s petition for review was due to be filed by November 19, 2004. As Miller filed the petition for review on November 22, 2004, we find that her petition is untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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 - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer