Kourouma v. Gonzales

Filing 920061114


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1276 MOUSSA KOUROUMA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-938-199) Submitted: November 3, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Moussa Kourouma, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen. A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. MA v. INSA, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). The Board ruled that Kourouma did not establish that exceptional circumstances prevented him from appearing before the immigration judge for a scheduled proceeding. We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Kourouma fails to show that the Board abused its discretion. Accordingly, we 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 -

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?