Menbere v. Mukasey , 257 F. App'x 688 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1636
DINO MENBERE,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-452-081)
Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 13, 2007
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott E. Bratton, MARGARET WONG & ASSOCIATES, LPA, Cleveland, Ohio,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior
Litigation Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dino Menbere, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying as untimely her 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 (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 Menbere’s motion to reopen was
untimely. We further find no error with the Board’s finding that
Menbere did not show due diligence excusing the late filing.
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 -