Filed: Feb. 09, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1448 MI CHOONG O’BRIEN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Petit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1448 MI CHOONG O’BRIEN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Petiti..
More
UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
- 2 -
