Romulo Hernandez Argueta v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, No. 18-1407 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1407 ROMULO HERNANDEZ ARGUETA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romulo Hernandez Argueta, Petitioner Pro Se. Jonathan Kevin Ross, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Romulo Hernandez Argueta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it was untimely filed. “The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012). This time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable tolling.” Id. The Board’s decision was issued on March 1, 2018. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), Hernandez Argueta had thirty days, or until Monday, April 2, 2018, to timely file the petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Hernandez Argueta’s petition for review, which was filed at the earliest on April 9, 2018, is clearly untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 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.
