Maria Santos-Neta v. Jefferson Sessions III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-847-403 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [17-1607]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DA CONCEICAO SANTOS-NETA,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: November 2, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, Petitioner Pro Se. Anthony Ogden Pottinger, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen.
We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and conclude that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and number-barred.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for
the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Santos-Neta (B.I.A. Apr. 7, 2017). We lack
jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and
therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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
PETITION DENIED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
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?