UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1577
SUN CHUL LEE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A34-404-037)
Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 18, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard W. Moore, Jr., Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sun Chul Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reconsider
its prior order denying a discretionary waiver under § 212(c) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act. Subsequent to the filing of
Lee’s petition for review on May 27, 2005, he filed a motion to
reopen with the Board that was denied by order of October 17, 2005.
Lee did not petition for review of that order.
On appeal, Lee challenges both the Board’s affirmance of
the denial of his motion to reconsider and its denial of the motion
to reopen. Lee may not challenge in this appeal the Board’s order
denying the motion to reopen, as he 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). Accordingly, because Lee did not file a petition for
review within thirty days of the Board’s order denying his motion
to reopen, this court’s review is limited to the Board’s order
affirming the denial of the motion to reconsider.
The Board ruled that Lee did not warrant the grant of a
motion to reconsider because he did not assert an error of fact or
law in the challenged decision. We have reviewed the record and
- 2 -
the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s denial of the
motion to reconsider on this ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a),
.23(b) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006).
We therefore 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 -