Femi v. Gonzales

Filing 920070813


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1585 SANYA FEMI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-780-584) Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 13, 2007 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oscar L. Amorow, AMOROW & TACHIE-MENSON, P.A., Hyattsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, R. Alexander Goring, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sanya Femi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen. Femi claims reopening was warranted because he received insufficient instructions and notice by the immigration judge. Our review of the Board's denial of a motion to reopen is extremely deferential, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor these motions. Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744-45 (4th Cir. 2006), This Court will reverse the cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). Board's denial of a motion to reopen only if it is "arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law." Id. at 745. We find no abuse of discretion in the Board's affirmation of the immigration judge's denial of Femi's motion to reopen based on his defective application. 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 -

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?