Pacifique Gahamanyi v. Michael B. Mukasey, etc.

348 F. App'x 189
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 14, 2009
Docket08-1616
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 348 F. App'x 189 (Pacifique Gahamanyi v. Michael B. Mukasey, etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pacifique Gahamanyi v. Michael B. Mukasey, etc., 348 F. App'x 189 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pacifique Gahamanyi, a native of Burundi and citizen of Rwanda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider an earlier decision, 2 denying a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), and finding him ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a section 1182(h) waiver of inadmissibility, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (“no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h)”), and, absent a waiver of inadmissibility, Gahamanyi is statutorily ineligible to adjust his status under section 1255, see 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (listing requirements for adjustment of status); cf. Pinos-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 439 (8th Cir.2008) (appeals courts not precluded from reviewing nondiscretionary decisions that pertain to statutory eligibility for discretionary relief). As to the denial of the motion to reconsider, we find the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) (motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of order); Ghasemimehr v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying untimely motion to reopen).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

2

. The BIA's earlier decision denying a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c), and finding Gahamanyi ineligible to adjust his status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159, is not properly before us. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days of final order of removal); Strato v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 651, 654-55 (8th Cir.2004) (motion to reconsider does not toll time for appeal of underlying removal order).

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

Related

Ledesma Paredes v. Barr
District of Columbia, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
348 F. App'x 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacifique-gahamanyi-v-michael-b-mukasey-etc-ca8-2009.