Gennadiy Karp v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1354 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1354 GENNADIY KARP; TAMILLA HUMBAT GIZI HASANOVA, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 29, 2013 Decided: August 8, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part, and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gennadiy Karp, Tamilla Humbat Gizi Hasanova, Petitioners Pro Se. Lindsay Corliss, Nicole N. Murley, William Charles Peachey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gennadiy Karp, a native of Moldova and a citizen of Azerbaijan, and his wife, Tamilla Humbat Gizi Hasanova, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion to reconsider and reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Petitioners contentions, and conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the claims challenging prior Board orders from which Petitioners failed to file a timely petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to those claims. Next, after reviewing Petitioners claims relative to the instant order under review, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Karp, (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2013). 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 IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART 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.