Oscar Guevara Beltran v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-237-121 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999298934].. [13-1741]

Appeal: 13-1741

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/19/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1741

OSCAR GUEVARA BELTRAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

February 7, 2014

Decided:

February 19, 2014

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, David
V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jesse M. Bless, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1741

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/19/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Oscar Guevara Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(“Board”)

dismissing

his

appeal

from

the

immigration

judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation
of

removal.

Because

the

petition

for

review

was

not

filed

within thirty days of the Board’s order, we dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
The

Board’s

decision

was

issued

on

May

8,

2013.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012), Guevara Beltran had
thirty days, or until Friday, June 7, 2013, to timely file the
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.”
405 (1995).

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,

It is “not subject to equitable tolling.”

Id.

Because Guevara Beltran did not file his petition until Monday,
June 10, 2013, the petition for review was untimely filed.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for
lack of jurisdiction.

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

2