Badassawe Tebonou, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Tebonous (1) motion to reconsider the Boards prior order denying his first motion to reopen removal proceedings, in which Tebonou asserted a material change in conditions in Togo; and (2) second motion to reopen based on a pending I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by Tebonous U.S-citizen wife. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
First, as to the Boards order denying Tebonous motion for reconsideration, we have reviewed the arguments Tebonou presses on appeal in conjunction with the administrative record, and discern no abuse of the Boards discretion in denying that motion. See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Tebonou (B.I.A. Mar. 23, 2020).
Tebonou next asserts that, because he is married to an American citizen, he is “eligible for the discretionary relief of adjustment of status.” (Petr’s Br. (ECF No. 13) at 15). This statement, without more, is insufficient to secure appellate review of the Boards denial of Tebonous second motion to reopen. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting issues not raised in appellate brief are waived). We thus conclude that Tebonou has waived appellate review of this aspect of the Boards order.
The remainder of Tebonous arguments relate to the Boards December 10, 2019, order denying Tebonous initial motion to reopen. However, Tebonou did not file the underlying petition for review until April 22, 2020. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review these contentions because Tebonou failed to timely petition this court for review of that specific order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (providing that petition for review must be filed no later than 30 days after date of final order of removal); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (noting that this time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms”). We observe that Tebonous subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration and second motion to reopen did not toll the time period for seeking review of the Boards order denying Tebonous first motion to reopen. See Stone, 514 U.S. at 394, 115 S.Ct. 1537. Because the current petition for review is untimely as to the Boards December 10, 2019, order denying the first motion to reopen, we dismiss this petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction as to Tebonous arguments related to that order.
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 DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.