
    SUN CHUL LEE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-1577.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 21, 2006.
    Decided: July 18, 2006.
    Richard W. Moore, Jr., Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Sun Chul Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reconsider its prior order denying a discretionary waiver under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Subsequent to the filing of Lee’s petition for review on May 27, 2005, he filed a motion to reopen with the Board that was denied by order of October 17, 2005. Lee did not petition for review of that order.

On appeal, Lee challenges both the Board’s affirmance of the denial of his motion to reconsider and its denial of the motion to reopen. Lee may not challenge in this appeal the Board’s order denying the motion to reopen, as he did not file a timely petition for review from that order. A petitioner has thirty days to file a petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000). 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, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Accordingly, because Lee did not file a petition for review within thirty days of the Board’s order denying his motion to reopen, this court’s review is limited to the Board’s order affirming the denial of the motion to reconsider.

The Board ruled that Lee did not warrant the grant of a motion to reconsider because he did not assert an error of fact or law in the challenged decision. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reconsider on this ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), 1003.23(b) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006). We therefore deny the petition for review. 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 DENIED  