Irina Yurova v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2186
IRINA YUROVA; GENADI YUROV,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 12, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip R. Kuhn, BRIDGEHOUSELAW, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, Kate D.
Balaban, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Irina Yurova and her husband, Genadi Yurov, natives and
citizens of Uzbekistan, petition for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reconsider.
We deny the petition for review.
The Petitioners had 30 days from the May 28, 2014, order to
timely file a petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)
(2012). 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). The filing of a motion to reopen
or reconsider with the Board does not toll or otherwise extend
the 30-day period for seeking review of the underlying
order. Id. at 394. A petition for review from the denial of a
motion to reopen or reconsider, if it is not timely as to the
underlying removal order, does not bestow jurisdiction to review
the final order of removal. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). Yurova’s October 30, 2014,
petition for review is only timely as to the September 30, 2014,
order denying reconsideration.
The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse
of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2015); Narine v. Holder,
559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009). A motion to reconsider
asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision and
“shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors
2
of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be
supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)
(2015). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reconsider
“only if the Board acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary
to law.” Narine, 559 F.3d at 249 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we deny 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 process.
PETITION DENIED
3