Rodolfo Romero-Reyes v. Alberto Gonzales, No. 06-3072 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for review - Immigration. Petition for review dismissed as untimely as it was not filed within 30 days of the BIA's decision.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3072 ___________ Rodolfo Romero-Reyes, Petitioner, v. Alberto Gonzales, Respondent. * * * * Petition for Review of an Order * of the Board of Immigration Appeals. * * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 14, 2007 Filed: August 22, 2007 ___________ Before MELLOY, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In 2000, immigration authorities charged Rodolfo Romero-Reyes as a removable alien. Romero-Reyes conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge denied his application for cancellation of removal because Romero-Reyes had not establishe[d] that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to Romero-Reyes or his family. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Counsel for Romero-Reyes filed a notice of appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals ( the Board ), but he did not pursue the case. The Board dismissed the appeal as abandoned on July 22, 2005. Romero-Reyes subsequently obtained new counsel and successfully moved to reinstate his appeal. On appeal to the Board, Romero-Reyes argued that his prior counsel s ineffective assistance at his removal hearing denied him a full and fair opportunity to present his claim. The Board rejected this argument in a decision dated July 13, 2006. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), Romero-Reyes had thirty days in which to petition for judicial review of the Board decision. Romero-Reyes did not file the present petition for review until Tuesday, August 15, 2006. His petition for review was untimely, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to hear it. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. ______________________________ -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.
