Case ID: f-appx_110/html/0348-01.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

Caroline Chebet SOI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General for the United States, Respondent.
    No. 04-1424.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 20, 2004.
    Decided: Oct. 12, 2004.
    Sean D. Hummel, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stephen J. Flynn, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, 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    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Caroline Chebet Soi, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion to reopen.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999). The 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 have reviewed the administrative record, the Board’s order, and the IJ’s decision and find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, 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