Mwaura v. Mukasey , 261 F. App'x 636 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-1753
    DIONISHIAH WANJIRU MWAURA,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A96-093-929)
    Submitted:   January 9, 2008                 Decided:   January 17, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Winston Wen-Hsiung Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J.
    Pettinato, Assistant Director, Russell J. E. Verby, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Dionishiah Wanjiru Mwaura, a native and citizen of Kenya,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen her immigration
    proceedings as a matter of discretion.    Based on our review of the
    record, we find we lack jurisdiction to review Mwaura’s claim that
    the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her
    deportation proceedings.    See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 
    492 F.3d 153
    , 155 (2d Cir. 2007); Malty v. Ashcroft, 
    381 F.3d 942
    , 945 n.1
    (9th Cir. 2004); Harchenko v. INS, 
    379 F.3d 405
    , 410-11 (6th Cir.
    2004); Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 246
    , 249-50 (5th
    Cir. 2004); Belay-Gebru v. INS, 
    327 F.3d 998
    , 1000-01 (10th Cir.
    2003); Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 
    320 F.3d 472
    , 474-75 (3d Cir.
    2003); Luis v. INS, 
    196 F.3d 36
    , 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999).      To the
    extent Mwaura attempts to avoid the jurisdictional bar by claiming
    a constitutional violation or a question of law, we find the claim
    is without merit.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack
    of jurisdiction.    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 DISMISSED
    - 2 -