Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01766/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01766-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Barr
Respondent
Oumie M. Bittaye
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1766

OUMIE M. BITTAYE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: January 6, 2020

Before FLOYD, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oumie M. Bittaye, Petitioner Pro Se. David Nicholas Harling, Ilana Joslyn Snyder, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1766 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/06/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Oumie M. Bittaye, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions for review of an 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen.*

 We 

have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board 

did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and number-barred. See 8 

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2019). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. In re Bittaye (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 2018). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND

DISMISSED IN PART

 * Bittaye has abandoned any challenge to the Board’s denial of her motion to 

reconsider by failing to raise the issue in her informal brief. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 

F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief). 

Additionally, although Bittaye argues that her attorney rendered ineffective assistance in 

pursuing an adjustment of status application on her behalf, we lack jurisdiction to consider 

this claim on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1766 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/06/2020 Pg: 2 of 2