Case ID: f-appx_159/html/0518-01.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

Aynalem WOLDETSADIK, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-1357.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 9, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 27, 2005.
    Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Joshua B. Royster, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Aynalem Woldetsadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir.1993). A 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 note the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely or barred by the numerical limitation. In addition, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding Woldetsadik did not support her claim of changed circumstances.

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