Irina Yurova v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-361-931, A087-361-932. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999604766].. [14-2186]

Appeal: 14-2186

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2186

IRINA YUROVA; GENADI YUROV,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

June 12, 2015

Decided:

June 18, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip R. Kuhn, BRIDGEHOUSELAW, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Petitioners.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, Kate D.
Balaban, Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2186

Doc: 26

Filed: 06/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Irina Yurova and her husband, Genadi Yurov, natives and
citizens of Uzbekistan, petition for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reconsider.
We deny the petition for review.
The Petitioners had 30 days from the May 28, 2014, order to
timely file a petition for review.
(2012).

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)

This time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must

be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.”
INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).

Stone v.

The filing of a motion to reopen

or reconsider with the Board does not toll or otherwise extend
the

30-day

order.

period

Id. at 394.

for

seeking

review

of

the

underlying

A petition for review from the denial of a

motion to reopen or reconsider, if it is not timely as to the
underlying removal order, does not bestow jurisdiction to review
the final order of removal.
F.3d

109,

111

(2d

Cir.

See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439

2006).

Yurova’s

October

30,

2014,

petition for review is only timely as to the September 30, 2014,
order denying reconsideration.
The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse
of discretion.

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2015); Narine v. Holder,

559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009).

A motion to reconsider

asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision and
“shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors
2

Appeal: 14-2186

of

Doc: 26

fact

or

supported
(2015).

by

Filed: 06/18/2015

law

Pg: 3 of 3

in

Board

the

pertinent

prior

authority.”

decision
8

C.F.R.

and
§

shall

be

1003.2(b)(1)

We will reverse a denial of a motion to reconsider

“only if the Board acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary
to law.”

Narine, 559 F.3d at 249 (internal quotation marks

omitted).
We
denying

conclude
the

the

motion

petition for review.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Board

to

did

not

reconsider.

abuse

its

discretion

Accordingly,

we

deny

in
the

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3