Ewondo v. Holder , 389 F. App'x 248 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2275
BERNARD LAURENT EWONDO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 14, 2010 Decided: July 23, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Theodore C. Hirt,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bernard Ewondo, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We deny the
petition for review.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010); INS v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552
F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 137 (2009).
The Board’s “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with
extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored
because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable
alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.”
Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). The motion “shall state
the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the
motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other
evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2010). Such
motion “shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that
evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.” Id.
Because Ewondo failed to show that the evidence
submitted with his motion to reopen was not available and could
2
not have been presented at the hearing, the Board did not abuse
its discretion denying the motion.
Insofar as Ewondo seeks to challenge the Board’s order
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order, we are
without jurisdiction. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2006),
Ewondo had thirty days from the date of the Board’s order to
petition this court 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). Further, it is “not subject to equitable tolling.”
Id.; see Fed. R. App. P. 26(b) (prohibiting this court from
extending the time to file “a petition to . . . review an order
of an administrative agency, board, commission, or officer of
the United States, unless specifically authorized by law”). The
Board’s order dismissing his appeal was filed December 11, 2008.
Ewondo did not file the petition for review until November 10,
2009, or clearly beyond the thirty-day period in which to file
petitions for review. Thus, this court is without jurisdiction
to review the December 11, 2008 order.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3