USCA4 Appeal: 23-1640 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1640

EVELYN ARELY GARCIA-ALBERTO, a/k/a Evelin Arely Garcia-Alberto, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

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

Submitted: March 13, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Joseph Moravec, BLESSINGER LEGAL, PLLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Levings, Assistant Director, Robert P. Coleman III, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1640 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Evelyn Arely Garcia-Alberto, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s adverse ruling in her “withholding-only” proceedings, which followed the Department of Homeland Security’s reinstatement of a prior order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

This court has “an independent obligation to assure [itself] of jurisdiction to decide an appeal.” Martinez v. Garland, 86 F.4th 561, 566 (4th Cir. 2023). A noncitizen has 30 days to petition for review of a final order of removal and that time-limit is jurisdictional.

Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Santos-de Jimenez v. Garland, 53 F.4th 173, 174 (4th Cir. 2022)). The decision reinstating Garcia-Alberto’s prior removal order was final when issued on April 14, 2015, see id. at 568, but Garcia-Alberto did not file her petition for review until June 13, 2023—over eight years later. Garcia-Alberto’s withholding-only proceedings did not affect the finality of the decision reinstating her prior removal order.

Id. at 569–70. Under the rationale expressed in Martinez, we hold that Garcia-Alberto’s petition for review is untimely; accordingly, we dismiss the petition 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.

DISMISSED