Case ID: f-appx_378/html/0253-01.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

Koikoi GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-2072.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2010.
    Decided: May 12, 2010.
    Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wish-nie, Jerome N. Frank, Legal Services Organization, New Haven, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Koikoi Guilavogui, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision declining to grant reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2009). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Guilavogui (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 2008). With regard to Guilavogui’s claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen his removal proceedings, we find that we are without jurisdiction to review any such determination, and thus dismiss the petition for review with respect to that claim. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.2009).

Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We deny Guilavogui’s motion to transfer the petition for review to the district court, and 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.