O'Brien v. Gonzales (4th Cir. 2007)

Federal Circuits, Fourth Circuit (February 09, 2007)

Docket number: 06-1448

Not Published
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/brien-v-gonzales-27670822
Id. vLex: VLEX-27670822

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1448

MI CHOONG O'BRIEN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A39-763-877)

Submitted: January 22, 2007 Decided: February 9, 2007

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jim Tom Haynes, JIM TOM HAYNES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Donald

E. Keener, Bryan S. Beier, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Mi Choong O'Brien, a native and citizen of Korea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings as a matter of discretion.

Based on our review of the record, we find that we lack jurisdiction to review O'Brien's claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her deportation proceedings. See Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405, 410-11 (6th Cir. 2004); Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir. 2004); Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir. 2003); 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). Because we lack jurisdiction over the petition, we decline to address the additional ground identified in the Board's decision denying O'Brien's motion to reopen.

Accordingly, we dismiss 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 DISMISSED

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access