Faulknor v. Mukasey , 256 F. App'x 652 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1297
RADLEY ALEXANDER FAULKNOR,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-836-265)
Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for
Appellant. Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Appellee
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Radley Alexander Faulknor, a native and citizen of
Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely his motion to
reopen. We deny the petition for review.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days
of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.A.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (West 2005 & Supp. 2007); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). We review the Board’s denial of a motion
to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007);
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales,
450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). 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). In explaining the degree of deference given
to the agency’s discretionary review, this court has observed that
the decision to deny a motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not
convincing.” Id. at 310 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if
the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry
v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007).
- 2 -
There is no doubt that Faulknor’s motion to reopen was
untimely. Accordingly, we find the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reopen. 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
- 3 -