Tshibonge v. Ashcroft , 81 F. App'x 785 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1293
STEPHANIE MANNE TSHIBONGE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-246-646)
Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: December 1, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam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, Ernesto
H. Molina, Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Jason S. Patil, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Stephanie Manne Tshibonge, 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 her
motion to reopen and reconsider the Board’s dismissal of her appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying her applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
Tshibonge first raises several challenges to the summary
affirmance procedure employed by the Board in its initial decision,
dated November 18, 2002, affirming the decision of the Immigration
Judge without opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7) (2003).
As Tshibonge did not file a timely petition for review of that
decision, we are without jurisdiction to consider her claims. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405
(1995).
Tshibonge next disputes the Board’s decision denying relief on
her motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the
Board’s order of February 11, 2003, and find that the Board did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(a) (2003). To the extent that Tshibonge seeks to challenge
the IJ’s determination that her asylum application is untimely and
she failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing the
2
late filing, we find we are without jurisdiction to consider such
a claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part 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.
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
3