KOUADIO v. HOLDER, 13-1879. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140131098
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Pascal Kouadio, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Kouadio's contentions and find that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging the Board's order of March 19, 2013, from which Kouadio failed to file a timely petition for review. See S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Pascal Kouadio, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Kouadio's contentions and find that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging the Board's order of March 19, 2013, from which Kouadio failed to file a timely petition for review. See St..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Pascal Kouadio, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Kouadio's contentions and find that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging the Board's order of March 19, 2013, from which Kouadio failed to file a timely petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Next, after reviewing Kouadio's claims relative to the instant order under review, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kouadio (B.I.A. June 14, 2013). 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.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
Source: Leagle
