Calister Simangwi v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A098-869-378. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999296078]. [13-1483]

Appeal: 13-1483

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1483

CALISTER SIMANGWI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

February 4, 2014

Decided:

February 12, 2014

Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per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

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joseph A.
O’Connell, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1483

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Calister Simangwi, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(“Board”)

denying

her

motion

to

reopen.

We

have

reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and
find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred.

See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2)

petition

(2013).

We

therefore

deny

the

review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.
Simangwi (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2013).
the

Board’s

refusal

to

for

See In re:

We lack jurisdiction to review

exercise

its

sua

sponte

authority

to

reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for
review.

See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.

2009).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART

2