Granilina v. Gonzales , 231 F. App'x 280 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1905
OKSANA GRANILINA; YEVGENIYA GRANILINA,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-237-487; A95-237-489)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 2, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Serghei Potorac, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Regina S. Moriarty, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oksana Granilina, and dependent petitioner Yevgeniya
Granilina, both natives and citizens of Russia, seek review of a
July 20, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
denying their motion to reconsider and reopen. Our review
discloses that the issues raised by petitioners on appeal relate
only to the Board’s order of May 10, 2006, affirming the
Immigration Judge’s denial of relief from removal. Because
petitioners did not timely petition for review of the May 10, 2006
order, we do not have jurisdiction to review it. See Stone v. INS,
514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995). To the extent that petitioners’
contentions allege error in the Board’s denial of the motion to
reconsider and reopen, our review discloses no abuse of discretion.
See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See Granilina v. Gonzales, Nos.
A95-237-487; A95-237-489 (B.I.A. July 20, 2006). 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.
PETITION DENIED
- 2 -