Wiles v. Gonzales , 132 F. App'x 494 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-2008
    BEATRICE V. WILES,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A70-799-675)
    Submitted:   April 20, 2005                 Decided:   May 31, 2005
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ephraim Tahir Mella, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal,
    Assistant Director, Anthony C. Payne, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Beatrice V. Wiles, a native and citizen of Liberia,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen.                    We deny the
    petition for review.
    Insofar as Wiles challenges the Board’s decision not to
    sua sponte reopen her case, we find we are without jurisdiction.
    See 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);
    Ekimian v. INS, 
    303 F.3d 1153
    , 1159 (9th Cir. 2002); Luis v. INS,
    
    196 F.3d 36
    , 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999).             The Board also noted Wiles’
    motion to reopen was untimely as it was filed almost seven years
    after the Board closed the case.               In her opening brief to this
    court, Wiles does not challenge that finding.                 Accordingly, we
    decline to review that decision.           See United States v. Al-Hamdi,
    
    356 F.3d 564
    ,   571   n.8   (4th    Cir.    2004);   Edwards   v.   City   of
    Goldsboro, 
    178 F.3d 231
    , 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
    We deny 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.
    PETITION DENIED
    - 2 -