Yodi Lenga v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1805
YODI SHEMBO ALYDOR LENGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 12, 2013 Decided: December 4, 2013
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yodi Shembo Alydor Lenga, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie Bosque,
Nicole N. Murley, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yodi Shembo Alydor Lenga, a native and citizen of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing
his appeal from the immigration judge’s order finding him
removable and denying his applications for relief. Because the
petition for review was not filed within thirty days of the
Board’s order, the petition must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
The Board entered the order on May 23, 2013. Pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012), Lenga had thirty days, or until
June 24, 2013, to timely file a petition for review. * This time
period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with
strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,
405 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable tolling.” Id.
Because Lenga did not file his petition until June 25, 2013, it
is untimely filed. Under Rule 25(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, filings are not timely if not filed with
the clerk of the court within the time fixed for such a filing.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for
lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because
*
The thirtieth day was Saturday, June 22, 2013. Therefore,
the petition was due no later than Monday, June 24, 2013. See
Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C).
2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3