Koikoi Guilavogui v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 402797114

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion transfer case [998117947-2] Originating case number: A097-188-480 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998337622] [08-2072]

Case: 08-2072

Document: 39

Date Filed: 05/12/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2072 KOIKOI GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wishnie, JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION, New Haven, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 08-2072

Document: 39

Date Filed: 05/12/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Koikoi Guilavogui, a native and citizen of Guinea,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We

have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision

declining to grant reopening. (2009).

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)

We therefore deny the petition for review in part for See In re: Guilavogui (B.I.A.

the reasons stated by the Board. Sept. 4, 2008).

With regard to Guilavogui's claim that the

Board should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen his removal proceedings, we find that we are without

jurisdiction to review any such determination, and thus dismiss the petition for review with respect to that claim. v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We deny Guilavogui's motion to transfer See Mosere

the petition for review to the district court, and dispense with oral argument because in the the facts and legal before contentions the court are and

adequately

presented

materials

argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

2