UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1183 EMMANUEL KEWU AMEH, Petitioner, versus

JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the

United States, Respondent. No. 04-1134 EMMANUEL KEWU AMEH, Petitioner, versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A74-887-925)

Submitted: July 23, 2004 Decided: August 6, 2004

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

- 2 - Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, RONALD D. RICHEY & ASSOCIATES, Rockville,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, William C. Erb,

OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 3 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions for review, Emmanuel Kewu Ameh, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions this court for

review of two separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”). In No. 03-1183, Ameh petitions for review of the

BoardÂ’s order affirming, without opinion, the immigration judgeÂ’s

order denying AmehÂ’s motion to terminate proceedings, granting

voluntary departure, and entering an alternate order of removal to

Ghana. In No. 04-1134, Ameh petitions for review of the BoardÂ’s

subsequent order denying his motion to reopen. We first address the Board§ 1003.2(c)(2) (2004); INS v. Doherty

, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). We further find that we lack jurisdiction to review AmehÂ’s claim that the

Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen his

removal proceedings. See

Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft

, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir. 2003); Ekimian v. INS

, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002); Luis v. INS

, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in No. 04-1134. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judgeÂ’s finding that the state courtÂ’s grant of probation before judgment

constituted a “conviction” within the meaning of the federal

- 4 - immigration laws. See U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (2000); Yanez-Popp v. INS

, 998 F.2d 231, 234-37 (4th Cir. 1993).

Finally, to the extent that Ameh claims that the Board§ 1003.1(e)(4) (2004) violated his rights under the Due Process

Clause, we find that this claim is squarely foreclosed by our

recent decision in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft

, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2004). We do not separately review whether the Board appropriately streamlined this case. See

id. at 281 (holding that the remedy when the Board improperly affirms a case under its

summary affirmance proced ures, for example, by "allow[ing] a non-harmless error to slip through," is judicial review of the

immigration judge's decision). We therefore deny the petition for

review in No. 03-1183. Accordingly, we deny both petitions 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. PETITIONS DENIED