Granilina v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
OKSANA GRANILINA; YEVGENIYA GRANILINA, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-237-487; A95-237-489)
May 25, 2007
July 2, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Serghei Potorac, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Regina S. Moriarty, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Oksana Granilina, and dependent petitioner Yevgeniya Granilina, both natives and citizens of Russia, seek review of a July 20, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reconsider and reopen. Our review
discloses that the issues raised by petitioners on appeal relate only to the Board's order of of May relief 10, 2006, affirming the
petitioners did not timely petition for review of the May 10, 2006 order, we do not have jurisdiction to review it. 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995). See Stone v. INS,
To the extent that petitioners'
contentions allege error in the Board's denial of the motion to reconsider and reopen, our review discloses no abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See Granilina v. Gonzales, Nos. We dispense with contentions are
A95-237-487; A95-237-489 (B.I.A. July 20, 2006). oral argument because the facts and legal
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?