EGHTEDARI v. HOLDER, 10-1578. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20110214080
Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hossein Eghtedari, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a) (2010). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hossein Eghtedari, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a) (2010). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons ..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hossein Eghtedari, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Eghtedari (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2010).
We lack jurisdiction to review Eghtedari's claim that the Board failed to assess "the availability and use of technological devices to identify political activists" as Eghtedari failed to raise this argument before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review.
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss 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 DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
Source: Leagle
