Rehema Musoke v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-261-173 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000087042].. [16-2446]

Appeal: 16-2446

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/24/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2446

REHEMA MUSOKE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: May 16, 2017

Decided: May 24, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rehema Musoke, Petitioner Pro Se. Stefanie N. Hennes, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2446

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/24/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rehema Musoke, a native and citizen of Uganda, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her second motion to reopen. For the
reasons set forth below, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Before this court, Musoke argues that she was denied a full and fair hearing on her
applications for relief in violation of the Due Process Clause and that she was entitled to
reopening based upon prior counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. Only the Board’s
denial of Musoke’s second motion to reopen is properly before us, however, as she failed
to timely petition this court for review of either the Board’s decision of December 11, 2015
(upholding the immigration judge’s determination that Musoke abandoned her applications
for relief) or its decision of March 23, 2016 (denying her pro se motion to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012); Stone v. INS, 514
U.S. 386, 405 (1995). Accordingly, we now limit our review to the Board’s denial of
Musoke’s second motion to reopen, and we dismiss the petition for review to the extent
she challenges the earlier decisions. We also dismiss the petition for review to the extent
Musoke challenges the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See
Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that the court lacks
jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings).
Turning to the Board’s denial of Musoke’s motion to reopen, we have reviewed
Musoke’s claims in conjunction with the administrative record and conclude that the Board
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and number-barred. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009).
2

Appeal: 16-2446

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/24/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Musoke (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART

3