Ibrahim Musa v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1608
IBRAHIM MUSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: January 25, 2021 Decided: February 9, 2021
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irena I. Karpinski, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, James A. Hurley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ibrahim Musa, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen.
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the IJ’s
decision denying Musa’s motion to reconsider. See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249
(4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's
decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See Lawrence v. Lynch,
826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.
2009). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Musa’s arguments concerning equitable
tolling that were not raised before the Board. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Tiscareno-Garcia v.
Holder, 780 F.3d 205, 210 (4th Cir. 2015).
We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board
in its dismissal of Musa’s appeal. In re Musa, (B.I.A. May 5, 2020). We dismiss the
petition for review in part insofar as Musa challenges the Board’s decision not to sua sponte
reopen his case and raises arguments not raised at the administrative level. 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
AND DISMISSED IN PART
2