Juan Paglinawan v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 14-1087 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1087 JUAN PAOLO PAGLINAWAN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 6, 2014 Decided: April 3, 2014 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Paolo Paglinawan, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Juan Paolo Paglinawan, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying his motions to reopen and for reconsideration. Because the petition for review was not filed within thirty days of the Board's order, the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Board entered the order on December 31, 2013. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012), Paglinawan had thirty days, or until January 30, 2014, to timely file a petition for review. This time period is jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). tolling. until Id. January Stone v. It is not subject to equitable Because Paglinawan did not file his petition 31, 2014, it is untimely filed. Under Rule 25(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, filings are not timely if not filed with the clerk of the court within the time fixed for such a filing. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of pauperis. legal jurisdiction. We deny leave to proceed in forma We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 3

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.