Sibanda v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RHODA SIBANDA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A98-316-619)
March 14, 2007
April 17, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristin K. Edison, Stacy S. Paddack, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Rhoda Sibanda, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming and adopting the immigration judge's order denying her motion to reopen and reconsider. petition for review. We review the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider with extreme deference and only for an abuse of discretion. Such motions We deny the
Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999).
are 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." 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). INS v. Doherty,
"[A]dministrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000).
With respect to Sibanda's motion for reconsideration, she failed to show any error of law or fact. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(2) (2006).
With respect to her request to reopen,
Sibanda failed to show that the evidence could not have been presented at the asylum hearing. (2006). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3)
Accordingly, we find the immigration judge did not abuse
his discretion. Insofar as Sibanda seeks review of the immigration
judge's order denying her applications for asylum, withholding from
- 2 -
removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture, we are without jurisdiction to review that decision. Sibanda did not
appeal the immigration judge's order to the Board, and thus she did not exhaust her administrative remedies. 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We See Asika v. Ashcroft,
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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?