Kamga v. Gonzales

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1674
AUGUSTIN KAMGA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-600-874)
Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 7, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter
D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour,
Assistant Director, Surell Brady, Attorney Advisor, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Augustin Kamga, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board)
order denying his motion for reconsideration of the Board’s denial
of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We affirm.
It is undisputed that Kamga’s motion to reconsider was
untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (2004). However, under
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004), the Board has authority to reopen or
reconsider a case in which it issued a final decision on its own
motion at any time. Kamga therefore argues that the Board should
have sua sponte exercised its authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
(2004) to reopen or reconsider his case. We find that this court
is without jurisdiction to review this claim. 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); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-33 (1985).
Moreover, we have reviewed the administrative record and
conclude that Kamga did not exhaust his administrative remedies
with respect to this claim because he did not present it on appeal
to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000); Asika v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1049(2005).
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny Kamga’s 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 -