Nadia Martinez-Saenz v. Jefferson Sessions III
This text of Nadia Martinez-Saenz v. Jefferson Sessions III (Nadia Martinez-Saenz v. Jefferson Sessions III) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1031
NADIA MARGARITA MARTINEZ-SAENZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, Petitioner Pro Se. Lori B. Warlick, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to
reopen her removal proceedings. The Attorney General moves to dismiss the petition for
review for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it was untimely filed. Because the petition
was not filed within thirty days of the Board’s order, we grant the motion and dismiss the
petition for review.
The Board issued its decision on September 14, 2017. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (2012), Martinez-Saenz had thirty days, or until October 16, 2017, * to timely
file a petition for review. The Supreme Court has held that 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 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable tolling.” Id. Because
Martinez-Saenz did not file her petition until January 9, 2018, the petition for review was
untimely filed.
Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss and 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.
PETITION DISMISSED
* Because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday, Martinez-Saenz had until Monday, October 16, 2017, to timely file her petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nadia Martinez-Saenz v. Jefferson Sessions III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nadia-martinez-saenz-v-jefferson-sessions-iii-ca4-2018.