Ndiaye v. Gonzales , 193 F. App'x 252 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1057
    DAOUR NDIAYE,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A97-165-161)
    Submitted:   July 24, 2006                 Decided:   August 7, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
    Virginia, for Petitioner.    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
    General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song E. Park,
    Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Daour Ndiaye, a native and citizen of Senegal, petitions
    this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of a
    motion to reconsider.         The Board also found that the immigration
    judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Ndiaye voluntary
    departure.
    First, we have considered Ndiaye’s challenge to the
    discretionary denial of voluntary departure and conclude that we
    lack jurisdiction to review it.            See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (2000)
    (“No court shall have jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a
    request for an order of voluntary departure . . . .”); 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(B)(I) (2000) (“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to
    review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section
    .   .   .   1229c    [the    section   governing      voluntary     departure]);
    Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 182
    , 193 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting
    that “[s]ection 1229c specifically precludes review of a denial of
    a request for voluntary departure . . . . [and] [l]ikewise, the
    general     judicial    review     provision   precludes      review   of   orders
    granting voluntary departure”).
    Next,     we   have   reviewed    the   record   and   the     Board’s
    decision and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
    denying Ndiaye’s motion to reconsider.               See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a)
    (2006); INS v. Doherty, 
    502 U.S. 314
    , 323-24 (1992); Jean v.
    - 2 -
    Gonzales, 
    435 F.3d 475
    , 481 (4th Cir. 2006).   We therefore deny the
    petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.     See In
    Re: Ndiaye, No. A97-165-161 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2005).
    We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-1057

Citation Numbers: 193 F. App'x 252

Judges: Duncan, Motz, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/7/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023