TANNOUS v. LYNCH, 16-1156. (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20161103132
Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2016
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Hayssam Fares Tannous, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(1) (2016). We therefore deny the petition for revi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Hayssam Fares Tannous, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(1) (2016). We therefore deny the petition for revie..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Hayssam Fares Tannous, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2016). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Tannous (B.I.A. Jan. 15, 2016).
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.
Source: Leagle
