Ingdashet v. Ashcroft ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1960
WUBANCHI HAILE INGDASHET,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-348-775)
Submitted: April 21, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Kantor, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D.
McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland,
Assistant Director, Shelley R. Goad, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wabanchi Haile Ingdashet, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
order denying her motion to reopen. We review the denial of a
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a) (2002);
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181
F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). 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). We have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s
order and the IJ’s decision and find no abuse of discretion.
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2