Alejandro Gonzales-Silva v. Michael B. Mukasey

Filing 920081215

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1938

ALEJANDRO GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1143

ALEJANDRO GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1683

ALEJANDRO GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

November 20, 2008

Decided:

December 15, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petitions dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, Thomas H. Tousley, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, a native and citizen of

Peru, seeks review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge's discretionary denial of his application to reopen for and adjustment reconsider. of status have and denying his

motions

We

fully

considered

Gonzales-Silva's contentions, and conclude that we are without jurisdiction discretionary to review the Board's of order status. we affirming See have 8 the

denial

of adjustment (2006).

U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)

Next,

reviewed

Gonzales-Silva's arguments and find no abuse of discretion in the Board's orders denying Gonzales-Silva's motions to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Afanwi v.

Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions 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. PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

3