UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1769
MARLON KELDO GREEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Keldo Green, Petitioner Pro Se. Jessica Dawgert, Allison
Frayer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Marlon Keldo Green, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against
Torture. Because the petition for review was not filed within
thirty days of the Board’s order, we grant the Attorney
General’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
The Board entered the order on June 18, 2014.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012), Green had thirty days,
or until July 18, 2014, to timely file a petition 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, 4055 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable
tolling.” Id. Because Green did not file his petition until
August 1, 2014, it is untimely filed. Under Rule 25(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, filings are not timely
if not filed with the clerk of the court within the time fixed
for such a filing.
Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s motion to
dismiss and dismiss the petition for review for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny Green’s motion for leave to proceed in
2
forma pauperis and his motion to file his appeal brief late. 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 DISMISSED
3