Razack v. INS ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ABDUL MAZEED ABDUL RAZACK,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 99-2362
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
ABDUL MAZEED ABDUL RAZACK,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 00-1063
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A72-370-521)
Submitted: June 27, 2000
Decided: July 12, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
No. 99-2362 dismissed and No. 00-1063 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Vir-
ginia, for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Assistant Director, Cindy S. Fer-
rier, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Abdul Mazeed Abdul Razack seeks
review of the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"):
(1) denying Razack's request for a stay of deportation (No. 99-2362);
and (2) denying Razack's motion to remand as untimely (No. 00-
1063).
Our review of the record discloses that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in treating Razack's motion to remand as a motion to
reopen. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 471 (BIA 1992).
Further, we find that the Board properly denied Razack's motion as
untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) (2000). Accordingly, we affirm in
No. 00-1063 on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Abdul Mazeed
Abdul Razack, No. A72-370-521 (BIA Dec. 15, 1999).
We decline to address Razack's challenge to the Board's denial of
his motion for stay of deportation because judicial review is available
only as to a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a) (West
1999); see Gottesman v. INS, 33 F.3d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1994).
Because the denial of a motion for a stay of deportation is not a final
order of removal, we dismiss No. 99-2362 for lack of jurisdiction.
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 99-2362 - DISMISSED
No. 00-1063 - AFFIRMED
3