UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2090
VICTORIA OYEJOLA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-457-889)
Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 8, 2006
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P.
Cote, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Victoria Oyejola petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to
reconsider its prior order affirming the immigration judge’s denial
of a § 212(h) waiver of criminal activity. Oyejola’s motion to
reconsider sought only to submit an addendum to the psychologist’s
report and to challenge the immigration judge’s consideration of
her prior asylum testimony in assessing her application for
adjustment of status. However, on appeal, Oyejola seeks to
challenge the Board’s prior order affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of the § 212(h) waiver.
Oyejola may not challenge in this appeal the Board’s
order affirming the decision of the immigration judge denying the
§ 212(h) waiver, as she did not file a timely petition for review
from that order. A petitioner has thirty days to file a petition
for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). 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 reconsider does not toll the thirty-day
period for seeking review of the underlying order. Id. at 394.
Accordingly, because Oyejola did not file a petition for review
within thirty days of the Board’s order affirming the immigration
judge’s denial of the § 212(h) waiver, this court’s review is
limited to the Board’s denial of the motion to reconsider. As
- 2 -
Oyejola makes no argument regarding that disposition, we conclude
that she has abandoned all claims that could properly be raised in
the appeal before us. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th
Cir. 2001) (holding failure to challenge denial of withholding of
removal and relief under Convention Against Torture in opening
brief constitutes abandonment of those claims); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding failure
to raise specific issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of
that issue under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A), requiring that
argument section of opening brief contain contentions, reasoning,
and authority).
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 -