Opinion
No. 18-1031
04-24-2018
NADIA MARGARITA MARTINEZ-SAENZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, Petitioner Pro Se. Lori B. Warlick, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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UNPUBLISHED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, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, Petitioner Pro Se. Lori B. Warlick, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The Attorney General moves to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it was untimely filed. Because the petition was not filed within thirty days of the Board's order, we grant the motion and dismiss the petition for review.
The Board issued its decision on September 14, 2017. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012), Martinez-Saenz had thirty days, or until October 16, 2017, to timely file a petition for review. The Supreme Court has held that 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). It is "not subject to equitable tolling." Id. Because Martinez-Saenz did not file her petition until January 9, 2018, the petition for review was untimely filed.
Because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday, Martinez-Saenz had until Monday, October 16, 2017, to timely file her petition. --------
Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General's motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for review. 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