Maria Santos-Neta v. Loretta Lynch , 644 F. App'x 225 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2269
MARIA DA CONCEICAO SANTOS-NETA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 15, 2016 Decided: April 8, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, Petitioner Pro Se. Elizabeth
Fitzgerald-Sambou, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
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 numerically barred. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2015). We therefore deny the petition
for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Santos-Neta (B.I.A. Sept. 24, 2015). 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
* To the extent that Santos-Neta challenges the Department
of Homeland Security’s (DHS) refusal to grant her requests for
prosecutorial discretion, the Board correctly noted that it
lacked jurisdiction to review the DHS’s decisions. We likewise
lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (2012). See Veloz-
Luvevano v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting
that the immigration judge, Board, and federal appellate courts
lack jurisdiction to review the government’s refusal to exercise
prosecutorial discretion).
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3