### UNPUBLISHED 

# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

A BDULKADIR A LI H ASSAN , Petitioner,

v. No. 00-1445 U.S. I MMIGRATION & N ATURALIZATION S ERVICE , Respondent.

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

(A28-072-018) Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: October 23, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELDiane McHugh-Martinez, LAW OFFICE OF MCHUGHMARTINEZ, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Joseph W. Ciolino, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Abdulkadir Ali Hassan petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application forsuspension of deportation and his motion to reopen. Hassan first contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying him relief in the form of suspension of deportation when it found he did not merit relief as a matter of discretion. Under § 309(c)(4)(E) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary decision to deny relief. See Kalaw v. INS , 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, we dismiss as to this claim. Hassan next asserts that the Board abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’sdecision and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Stewart v. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999); Ghosh v. Attorney Gen. , 629 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1980); Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988); Matter of RiveraClaros , Int. Dec. 3296 (BIA 1996); 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2000). Weaccordingly affirm the Board’s denial of relief on this claim. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 2 H ASSAN v. INS

### UNPUBLISHED 

# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

A BDULKADIR A LI H ASSAN , Petitioner,

v. No. 00-1445 U.S. I MMIGRATION & N ATURALIZATION S ERVICE , Respondent.

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

(A28-072-018) Submitted: August 31, 2000 Decided: October 23, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELDiane McHugh-Martinez, LAW OFFICE OF MCHUGHMARTINEZ, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Joseph W. Ciolino, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Abdulkadir Ali Hassan petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application forsuspension of deportation and his motion to reopen. Hassan first contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying him relief in the form of suspension of deportation when it found he did not merit relief as a matter of discretion. Under § 309(c)(4)(E) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary decision to deny relief. See Kalaw v. INS , 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, we dismiss as to this claim. Hassan next asserts that the Board abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’sdecision and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Stewart v. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999); Ghosh v. Attorney Gen. , 629 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1980); Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988); Matter of RiveraClaros , Int. Dec. 3296 (BIA 1996); 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2000). Weaccordingly affirm the Board’s denial of relief on this claim. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 2 H ASSAN v. INS