Lumbu v. Ashcroft , 84 F. App'x 281 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1400
UMADJELA ANDRE LUMBU,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-250-844)
Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J.
Scadron, Assistant Director, Robbin K. Blaya, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Umadjela Andre Lumbu, a native and citizen of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board). The order denied his motion to reopen
and reconsider the Board’s dismissal of his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s order denying his applications for asylum and
withholding of removal.
Lumbu first raises several challenges to the summary
affirmance procedure employed by the Board in its initial decision,
dated October 8, 2002, affirming the decision of the Immigration
Judge without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003).
As Lumbu did not file a timely petition for review of that
decision, we are without jurisdiction to consider his claims. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405
(1995).
Lumbu next takes issue with the Board’s decision to deny his
motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s
order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
declining to grant Lumbu the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2003).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART
3