Case ID: f-appx_98/html/0968-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Blema DEKU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nd. 03-1875.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 19, 2004.
    Decided: June 9, 2004.
    Allan Ebert, Law Offices of Allan Ebert, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Danielle Franco, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Blema Deku, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the BIA’s order and find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Deku’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Moreover, despite Deku’s urgings, we do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s decision denying Deku’s applications for asylum and withholding from removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6). (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the BIA’s reasoning. See In re: Deku, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (BIA June 30, 2003). 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