Anga v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Anga v. Gonzales

146 F. App'x 654

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 2005

Docket04-2303

StatusUnpublished

This text of 146 F. App'x 654 (Anga v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anga v. Gonzales, 146 F. App'x 654 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Victorine Ankongbe Anga, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000), “[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal.” 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). Moreover, it is well established that the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen is a final order of removal. See Rose v. Woolwine, 344 F.2d 993, 994-95 (4th Cir.1965).

Anga’s petition was filed thirty-three days after the Board’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen; thus, her petition was untimely. Absent jurisdiction to review the merits of this claim, we dismiss Anga’s petition. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Victorine Ankongbe Anga, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000), “[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal.” 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). Moreover, it is well established that the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen is a final order of removal. See Rose v. Woolwine, 344 F.2d 993, 994-95 (4th Cir.1965).

Anga’s petition was filed thirty-three days after the Board’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen; thus, her petition was untimely. Absent jurisdiction to review the merits of this claim, we dismiss Anga’s petition. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F. App'x 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anga-v-gonzales-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack