Kamga v. Gonzales (4th Cir. 2006)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (March 07, 2006)

Docket number: 05-1674

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/kamga-v-gonzales-20183479
Id. vLex: VLEX-20183479

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

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Tigran Ekimian; Rouzan Nagapetian; Avetis Hekimian, Petitioners, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002)

U.S. Code - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC 1252 - Sec. 1252. Judicial review of orders of removal

Code of Federal Regulations - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - 8 CFR 1003.2 - Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Efrain Modesto Calle-Vujiles, Petitioner v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent, 320 F.3d 472 (3rd Cir. 2003)

U.S. Supreme Court - Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985)

See all quotations

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1674

AUGUSTIN KAMGA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A78-600-874)

Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 7, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter

D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour,

Assistant Director, Surell Brady, Attorney Advisor, Washington,

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Augustin Kamga, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (Board) order denying his motion for reconsideration of the Board's denial of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We affirm.

It is undisputed that Kamga's motion to reconsider was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (2004). However, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004), the Board has authority to reopen or reconsider a case in which it issued a final decision on its own motion at any time. Kamga therefore argues that the Board should have sua sponte exercised its authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004) to reopen or reconsider his case. We find that this court is without jurisdiction to review this claim. See 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); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-33 (1985).

Moreover, we have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that Kamga did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this claim because he did not present it on appeal See 8U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, to the Board.

362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1049 (2005).

Accordingly, we deny Kamga's 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