Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0942-02.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

Isatah Mary CONTEH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Respondent.
    No. 03-2294.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 19, 2004.
    Decided July 7, 2004.
    
      Irena I. Karpinski, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Papú Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, Isaac R. Campbell, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, 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    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Isatah Mary Conteh, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of Conteh’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). The record reveals that the notice was mailed to Conteh’s last known address and that she failed to keep the immigration court apprised of changes in her address. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l)(F) (1994) (“[T]he alien must provide the Attorney General immediately with a written record of any change of the alien’s address”); 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1994) (“[Wjritten notice shall not be required under this paragraph if the alien has failed to provide the address required under subsection (a)(1)(F)”); Dominguez v. United States Atty. Gen., 284 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir.2002). We find no abuse of discretion under these circumstances. 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 
      
      . The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) repealed 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252b(a)(l)(F) & (a)(2) effective April 1, 1997. Nearly identical language now appears in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1)(F) & 1229a(5)(b) (1999). Under the IIRIRA, §§ 1252b(a)(l)(F) & (a)(2) continue to apply because this case was in progress before the act was passed.