Soo Kyang Kim v. Gonzales , 161 F. App'x 242 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-1546
    SOO KYANG KIM,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A79-729-173)
    Submitted:   December 12, 2005            Decided:   December 30, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lawrence S. Kerben, Kew Gardens, New York, for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi,
    Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
    Division, Aaron J. Burstein, N. Christopher Hardee, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
    Soo Kyang Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of a
    motion to reopen.        Kim sought rescission of a final order of
    removal entered in absentia.          She claimed reopening was warranted
    because her absence was due to her failure to receive adequate
    notice   of    the   hearing,   and   due   to   ineffective      assistance   of
    counsel, an exceptional circumstance beyond her control.*               We deny
    the petition for review.
    We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for
    abuse of discretion.      
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a) (2005); INS v. Doherty,
    
    502 U.S. 314
    , 323-24 (1992).          A denial of a motion to reopen must
    be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do
    not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor
    motions to reopen.      M.A. v. INS, 
    899 F.2d 304
    , 308 (4th Cir. 1990)
    (en banc).       We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
    denying the motion.
    Accordingly,   we   deny   the     petition   for    review.     We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    *
    Kim seeks to argue in this court that counsel was ineffective
    in failing to accurately notify her of the need for her to attend
    the hearing. As this claim was not raised before the Board, we
    have no jurisdiction to consider the argument because Kim failed to
    satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (d) (2000).
    See Asika v. Ashcroft, 
    362 F.3d 264
    , 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert.
    denied, 
    125 S. Ct. 861
     (2005).
    - 2 -
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1546

Citation Numbers: 161 F. App'x 242

Judges: Luttig, Williams, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/30/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024