From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karp v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Aug 8, 2013
537 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-1354

08-08-2013

GENNADIY KARP; TAMILLA HUMBAT GIZI HASANOVA, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

Gennadiy Karp, Tamilla Humbat Gizi Hasanova, Petitioners Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, Nicole N. Murley, William Charles Peachey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part, and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gennadiy Karp, Tamilla Humbat Gizi Hasanova, Petitioners Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, Nicole N. Murley, William Charles Peachey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Gennadiy Karp, a native of Moldova and a citizen of Azerbaijan, and his wife, Tamilla Humbat Gizi Hasanova, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reconsider and reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Petitioners' contentions, and conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging prior Board orders from which Petitioners failed to file a timely petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Next, after reviewing Petitioners' claims relative to the instant order under review, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Karp, (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2013). 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


Summaries of

Karp v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Aug 8, 2013
537 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Karp v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:GENNADIY KARP; TAMILLA HUMBAT GIZI HASANOVA, Petitioners, v. ERIC H…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 8, 2013

Citations

537 F. App'x 256 (4th Cir. 2013)