U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2022

Orlin Yanez-Reyes v. Merrick Garland

Orlin Yanez-Reyes v. Merrick Garland
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 11, 2022

Orlin Yanez-Reyes v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1072 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/11/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1072

ORLIN ALEXIS YANEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: February 25, 2022 Decided: March 11, 2022

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Njinuwo C. Bayelle, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Stephen Finn, Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1072 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/11/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Orlin Alexis Yanez-Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board’s decision was issued on December 15, 2020. Yanez-Reyes had 30 days from that date, or until Thursday, January 14, 2021, to timely file a petition for review in this court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). 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. Yanez-Reyes’ petition for review was filed on Friday, January 15, 2021, one day after the filing deadline.

Accordingly, we dismiss the untimely petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.