Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

167 F. App'x 348

Theodore v. Gonzales

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 14, 2006

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2006-02-14

Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty · Ma A26851062 v. US Immigration & Naturalization Service · Belay-Gebru v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Decided 2006-02-14

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Alio Theodore, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir.1993). A 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).

¶2 Theodore raises several issues in his brief, none of which have merit. We note the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen as untimely. Moreover, even assuming we have authority to reach Theodore’s equitable tolling arguments and that they are not waived, he has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. Thus, there is no reason for declining to enforce the ninety-day period to file motions to reopen. We are without authority to review the Board’s decision not to sua sponte *349 reopen the case. Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998,1000-01 (10th Cir.2003).

¶3 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.

¶4 PETITION DENIED

/167/fappx/348 · .json · Public domain