Nabe v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 53 F. App'x 302 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1733
MAMADY NABE,
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. (A72-349-847)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 24, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinot, LAW OFFICE OF MARC SEGUINOT, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Joan E. Smiley, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mamady Nabe, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
denying his motion to reopen. Nabe contends that the Board abused
its discretion in denying the motion because the flaws in the
underlying application for adjustment of status were caused by
ineffective assistance of his initial counsel. See Stewart v. INS,
181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999) (reviewing the Board’s denial of
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion).
We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s
decision. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in refusing to reopen proceedings upon finding that Nabe failed to
meet the requirements for filing an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim as set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637(BIA), aff’d, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988). 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
2