Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01156/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Hayssam Fares Tannous
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1156

HAYSSAM FARES TANNOUS,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Marc Seguinot, SEGUINOT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for 

Petitioner. Benjamin Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert D. 

Tennyson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1156 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Hayssam Fares Tannous, a native and citizen of Lebanon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely. We have 

reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and 

find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) 

(2016). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for 

the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Tannous (B.I.A. Jan. 

15, 2016). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to 

exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore 

dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See

Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); 

Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). 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

Appeal: 16-1156 Doc: 36 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 2