Bangura v. INS ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-2325
    KALLAY Y. BANGURA,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration & Natural-
    ization Service. (A72-419-879)
    Submitted:   February 7, 1996          Decided:     February 14, 1996
    Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kallay Y. Bangura, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Christopher Walters,
    Bryan Stuart Beier, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washing-
    ton, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Petitioner seeks review of the final deportation order,
    entered in absentia, of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitions
    for review of final deportation orders entered in absentia must be
    filed not later than sixty days after the date of the final order
    of deportation. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252b(c)(4) (West Supp. 1995). This
    court does not have jurisdiction to review an order when the peti-
    tion for review is untimely. See generally Oum v. INS, 
    613 F.2d 51
    ,
    53-54 (4th Cir. 1980). On April 10, 1995, the Board of Immigration
    Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal of the Immigration Judge's
    denial of Appellant's second motion to reopen and the deportation
    order became final. Petitioner filed the petition for review on
    July 10, 1995, more than sixty days after the Board's order became
    final. Petitioner's failure to timely file a petition for review
    deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We
    therefore grant the Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal. We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-2325

Filed Date: 2/14/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021