Case ID: f-appx_182/html/0196-01.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

Jean Kouassi AZO; Simone Afiavi Hounsounou; Ullanda J C Azo; Badiche C I Azo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-2052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2006.
    Decided May 23, 2006.
    Ana T. Jacobs, Ana T. Jacobs & Associates, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Aviva L. Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Dennis M. Wong, Office of Immigration Litigation, Dublin, California, for Respondent.
    
      Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Jean Kouassi Azo, and dependent petitioners Simone Afíavi Hounsounou, Ullanda Azo, and Badiche Azo, all natives and citizens of Benin, petition this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The Board adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status, denied Azo’s motion to reopen and reconsider his asylum claim, and rejected his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

First, we have considered Azo’s challenge to the discretionary denial of adjustment of status and conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D) (West 2005); Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419-20 (4th Cir.2006). Next, we have reviewed the record and the Board’s decision and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Azo’s motion to reopen and reconsider. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). We thus affirm the denial of the motion for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Azo, Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 24, 2005).

We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART