Opinion
No. 15-2269
04-08-2016
MARIA DA CONCEICAO SANTOS-NETA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, Petitioner Pro Se. Elizabeth Fitzgerald-Sambou, Anthony Ogden Pottinger, 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UNPUBLISHED On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.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 NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, Petitioner Pro Se. Elizabeth Fitzgerald-Sambou, Anthony Ogden Pottinger, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and numerically barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2015). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Santos-Neta (B.I.A. Sept. 24, 2015). We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).
To the extent that Santos-Neta challenges the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) refusal to grant her requests for prosecutorial discretion, the Board correctly noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the DHS's decisions. We likewise lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (2012). See Veloz-Luvevano v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2015) (noting that the immigration judge, Board, and federal appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review the government's refusal to exercise prosecutorial discretion). --------
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART