Anatoli Stanev v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-2532 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2532 ANATOLI STANCHEV STANEV, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 13, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Andrea N. Gevas, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Anatoli Bulgaria, Stanchev petitions for Stanev, review of a native an order and of citizen the Board Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying his motion to reopen. of of We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. On May 11, 2012, the Board dismissed Stanev s appeal from the immigration judge s order denying his motion to reopen. On October 3, 2013, Stanev filed a motion to reopen with the Board based on changed circumstances. motion because it was untimely. The Board denied the The Board also declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a final order of removal. 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2013). There is no time limit for filing a motion to reopen if the basis is to apply for asylum based on changed country conditions that occurred § 1229a(c)(7)(C). since the prior proceeding. 8 U.S.C. However, a motion to reopen based on a change in personal circumstances, such as a marriage and an approved I130 visa petition, is not the same as a change in country conditions and does not excuse the time limitations for filing a motion to reopen. See Ji Cheng Ni v. Holder, 715 F.3d 620, 624 (7th Cir. 2013); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 2010); Mei Ya Zhang v. Attorney Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 2 (11th Cir. 2009); Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d 71, 77 (1st Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review from that part of the Board s order denying Stanev s untimely motion to reopen. We to decision are decline reopen the case. without to jurisdiction exercise its to review sua sponte the Board s authority to In Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009), we noted that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) provides that the [Board] may reopen on its own motion, but it provides no guidance as to the [Board] s appropriate course of action, sets forth no factors . . ., places no constraints on the [Board] s discretion, and specifies no standards for a court to use to cabin the [Board] s discretion. Id. at 401 (quoting Tamenut (8th v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1004 Cir. 2008)). Because there are no meaningful standards by which to judge the [Board] s exercise of discretion, we concluded that we lack jurisdiction over the Board s refusal to sua sponte reopen a case. Mosere, 552 F.3d at 401; see also Peralta v. Holder, 567 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 2009) ( The [Board] s discretion in this regard is unfettered[.] ). the petition for review Accordingly, we dismiss that part of from the Board s order denying sua sponte reopening. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 3 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4
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.
