Filed: Sep. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1698 YOSEPH NIGATU BEZABEH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yoseph Nigatu Bezabeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Channah F. Norman, Jason Wisecup, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washingt
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1698 YOSEPH NIGATU BEZABEH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yoseph Nigatu Bezabeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Channah F. Norman, Jason Wisecup, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washingto..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1698
YOSEPH NIGATU BEZABEH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yoseph Nigatu Bezabeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Channah F. Norman,
Jason Wisecup, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yoseph Nigatu Bezabeh petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion
to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review because it is
untimely.
Bezabeh had thirty days from the date of the Board’s
April 16, 2013 order from which to file a timely petition for
review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2006). Because the petition
was filed on May 29, 2013, it is untimely. The thirty day time
period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with
strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS,
514 U.S. 386,
405 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable tolling.” Id.
Thus, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the
Board’s order denying the motion to reopen.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2