Case ID: f-appx_152/html/0311-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Akiyoyovbi OGHENOCHUKO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-1081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.
    Decided: Nov. 1, 2005.
    James A. Roberts, Law Offices of James A. Roberts, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Bryan S. Beier, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Daniel AMyoyovbi Oghenochuko, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). 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 
      
       While we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of Oghenochuko’s motion to reopen because he did not petition for review of that order within thirty days, see 8 XJ.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000), we find that we have jurisdiction to review the Board’s order denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 393, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (concluding that when "amending the [Immigration and Nationality Act] Congress chose to depart from the ordinary judicial treatment of agency orders under reconsideration").