Granilina v. Gonzales, No. 06-1905 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1905 OKSANA GRANILINA; YEVGENIYA GRANILINA, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-237-487; A95-237-489) Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 2, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Serghei Potorac, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Regina S. Moriarty, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Oksana Granilina, and dependent petitioner Yevgeniya Granilina, both natives and citizens of Russia, seek review of a July 20, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reconsider and reopen. Our review discloses that the issues raised by petitioners on appeal relate only to the Immigration Board s Judge s order denial of of May 10, relief 2006, from affirming removal. the Because petitioners did not timely petition for review of the May 10, 2006 order, we do not have jurisdiction to review it. 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995). See Stone v. INS, To the extent that petitioners contentions allege error in the Board s denial of the motion to reconsider and reopen, our review discloses no abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See Granilina v. Gonzales, Nos. A95-237-487; A95-237-489 (B.I.A. July 20, 2006). We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.