Salamatou Maikido v. Jefferson Sessions III ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2329
SALAMATOU ISSAKA MAIKIDO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: July 20, 2018 Decided: August 2, 2018
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter E. Torres, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Salamatou Issaka Maikido, a native and citizen of Niger, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying Maikido’s motion to reopen her removal
proceedings. We have reviewed the Board’s order, in conjunction with the administrative
record, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the motion
was both number- and time-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), or in agreeing that Maikido
failed to substantially comply with the requirements of In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637
(B.I.A. 1988). See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745–47 (4th Cir. 2006). We therefore
deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Maikido
(B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2017).
Maikido also challenges the agency’s refusal to exercise its authority to reopen her
proceedings sua sponte. We lack jurisdiction to review how the agency exercises its sua
sponte discretion. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206–07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere
v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 398–99 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore dismiss the petition for
review in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
2