Case Name: Metasebya Kassa MEKONEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-12
Citations: 216 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 06-1357
Parties: Metasebya Kassa MEKONEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 216
Pages: 312–312

Head Matter:
Metasebya Kassa MEKONEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1357.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 12, 2007.
Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Metasebya Kassa Mekonen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the ground that it was untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2006) (establishing a ninety-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992) (setting forth standard of review).
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.
We find that Mekonen has failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling. See Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.2000).