Ume v. Ashcroft , 117 F. App'x 311 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-1667
    CAROL AMAKA UME,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General for the
    United States,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A73-618-284)
    Submitted:   December 23, 2004            Decided:   January 10, 2005
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Oscar L. Amorow, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for
    Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James S.
    Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sarah Maloney, OFFICE OF
    IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Carol   Amaka      Ume,   a   native   and   citizen   of   Nigeria,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its denial of
    her motion to reopen removal proceedings.*              We have reviewed the
    administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board
    did not abuse its discretion.            See INS v. Doherty, 
    502 U.S. 314
    ,
    323-24 (1992).     Additionally, we conclude that Ume’s due process
    claim is without merit.        See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 
    362 F.3d 272
    , 278 (4th Cir. 2004); Rusu v. INS, 
    296 F.3d 316
    , 321-22,
    324 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we 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
    *
    While we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of
    Ume’s motion to reopen because she did not petition for review of
    that order within thirty days, see 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(1) (2000), we
    conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the Board’s order
    denying the motion to reconsider.      See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(6)
    (2000); Stone v. INS, 
    514 U.S. 386
    , 393 (1995) (concluding that
    when “amending the [Immigration and Nationality Act] Congress chose
    to depart from the ordinary judicial treatment of agency orders
    under reconsideration”).
    - 2 -