Filed: Jan. 14, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1703 JOSEPH MOUTCHE, Petitioner, versus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-494-346) Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 14, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryla
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1703 JOSEPH MOUTCHE, Petitioner, versus DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-494-346) Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 14, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Marylan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1703
JOSEPH MOUTCHE,
Petitioner,
versus
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN
ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-494-346)
Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 14, 2005
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Jason S. Patil,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Ashcroft.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Moutche, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his
motion to reopen.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider
with extreme deference and only for an abuse of discretion. 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24
(1992). A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in
its earlier decision. The motion must “state the reasons for the
motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board
decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1). Such motions are especially disfavored “in a
deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay
works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to
remain in the United States.” Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323.
Moutche contends his former counsel told him he did not
have to attend his removal hearing. However, Moutche has failed to
submit any evidence establishing this fact. We accordingly cannot
find that the Board abused its discretion.
We therefore 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
- 2 -