Mersha v. Gonzales (4th Cir. 2005)

Federal Circuits, Fourth Circuit (June 10, 2005)

Docket number: 04-2353

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/mersha-v-gonzales-19643652
Id. vLex: VLEX-19643652

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 Ninth Circuit - Tigran Ekimian; Rouzan Nagapetian; Avetis Hekimian, Petitioners, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent., 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002)

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - Maria Dulce Pena Luis, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent., 196 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 1999)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2353

WOIONESHET W. MERSHA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals. (A75-350-653)

Submitted: May 31, 2005 Decided: June 10, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Maureen O'Sullivan, KAPLAN, O'SULLIVAN & FRIEDMAN, Boston,

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

General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Annette M.

Wietecha, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Woioneshet W. Mersha, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider its decision denying relief on her motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Mersha contends that the Board erred in refusing to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen her removal proceedings. We find that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. 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). In addition, to the extent that the motion to reconsider could be construed as a second motion to reopen, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board's finding that the motion is barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2005).

We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part 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 IN PART AND DENIED IN PART