Teahjay v. Gonzales , 138 F. App'x 564 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2344
JUOJULUE MILTON TEAHJAY,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A27-111-150)
Submitted: May 4, 2005 Decided: July 11, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juojulue Milton Teahjay, a native and citizen of Liberia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen its previous order
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision
ordering him removed in absentia.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.
1999). The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with
extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate
reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to
reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).
A motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will
be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and
shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2004). “A motion to reopen proceedings
shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence
sought to be offered is material and was not available and could
not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id.We have reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s
decision, and the Board’s orders and find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
- 2 -
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 -