CAZARES ANDRADE v. BARR (2020)

Carlos Cazares Andrade, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

To the extent Cazares Andrade challenges the Board’s prior order, which dismissed his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision and denied his motions to remand and for administrative closure, we lack jurisdiction to consider his arguments because the only order currently before this court is the Board’s June 10, 2019, order denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2018) (providing that petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days after date of final order of removal); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (noting that this time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms”). Accordingly, we dismiss in part the petition for review.

We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if the Board acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on our review of Cazares Andrade’s brief and the administrative record, we conclude that no abuse of discretion occurred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2019). We therefore deny in part the petition for review. See In re Cazares Andrade (B.I.A. June 10, 2019). 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

PER CURIAM:

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.