Peter Kinyanjui v. Jefferson Sessions III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-888-232 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [17-1368]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: September 18, 2017
Decided: October 12, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant
Director, Lindsay Corliss, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Peter Kinyanjui, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely and
declining to apply equitable tolling. 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) (2017). We
therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re
Kinyanjui (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 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
DENIED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?