Fye v. Gonzales, (4th Cir. 2005)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2532
RAMATOUILLE FYE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-534-679)
Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: July 20, 2005
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irena I. Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA I. KARPINSKI, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Ramatouille Fye, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reconsider the Board's dismissal of her appeal. We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty,502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). Fye also claims that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her proceedings.
Other federal appellate courts have found they lack jurisdiction to review the Board's decision not to exercise its sua sponte power.
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). Even were we to assume jurisdiction, however, we would find no reversible error in this case.
Accordingly, we 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
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - Edith Stewart, Petitioner, v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Respondent., 181 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 1999)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Jose Mario Enriquez-Alvarado, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General, Respondent., 371 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2004)
- 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)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
