Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 F. App'x 420

Mapku v. Ashcroft

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided August 16, 2004

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-08-16

Relies on Soadjede v. Ashcroft · Francisco Lara v. Em Trominski Janet Reno US Francisco Lara-Resendez · United States of America v. Gary Allen Patterson

Decided 2004-08-16

PER CURIAM: *

¶1 Kol Mapku, also known as Kole Marku, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s • (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Mapku argues that: (1) the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the IJ’s decision, (2) equitable tolling should apply to his case, and (3) that his due process rights were violated when the BIA adopted the reasoning of the IJ and affirmed the IJ’s decision.

¶2 Mapku has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the denial of his motion to reopen. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.2000). As the operation of a statute of limitations is not at issue in this case, Mapku’s equitable tolling argument is without merit. See United States v. Patterson, 211 F.3d 927, 930 (5th Cir.2000). Furthermore, Mapku’s due process argument is unavailing. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

*

¶3 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

/104/fappx/420 · .json · Public domain