Filed: Jul. 21, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1802 KOIKOI GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 2, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wishnie, JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION, Ne
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1802 KOIKOI GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 2, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wishnie, JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION, New..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1802
KOIKOI GUILAVOGUI,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 2, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wishnie, JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL
SERVICES ORGANIZATION, New Haven, Connecticut, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Koikoi Guilavogui, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying as untimely his motion to reopen
immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the
Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion to reopen. See Barry v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d
741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007).
Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to
invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Zhao
Quon Chen v. Gonzales,
492 F.3d 153, 155 (2d Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review. We deny Guilavogui’s motion to hold this case in abeyance
and 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
- 2 -