Case ID: f-appx_33/html/0106-01.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

Fitta Wakene GELETU, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents.
    No. 01-2196.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 20, 2002.
    Decided April 26, 2002.
    Allan Ebert, Law Offices of Allan Ebert, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, A. Ashley Tabaddor, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Fitta Wakene Geletu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. Geletu contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion because its untimeliness was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel. See Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999) (reviewing the Board’s denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion).

We have reviewed the administrative record and Board’s decision and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s refusal to reopen proceedings where the motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a), (c)(2) (2001); In re A-A-, Int. Dec. 3357 (BIA 1998) (en banc); In re Lei, Int. Dec. 3356 (BIA 1998) (en banc). In addition, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Geletu failed to meet the requirements for filing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Board and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.