Inna Argashokova v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A201-123-256 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000160154].. [17-1133]

Appeal: 17-1133

Doc: 27

Filed: 09/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1133

INNA VLADISLAVOVNA ARGASHOKOVA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted: September 12, 2017

Decided: September 22, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tatiana S. Aristova, KHAVINSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Plainsboro, New Jersey, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier,
Assistant Director, Timothy G. Hayes, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1133

Doc: 27

Filed: 09/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Inna Vladislavovna Argashokova, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen
of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
denying her motion to reopen as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative record
and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2)
(2017). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re Argashokova (B.I.A. Jan. 4, 2017).
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority
to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Lawrence v.
Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01
(4th Cir. 2009). 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 DENIED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

2