Case Name: Esther Kayakez MWINKEU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-07
Citations: 133 F. App'x 81
Docket Number: No. 04-2453
Parties: Esther Kayakez MWINKEU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 81–81

Head Matter:
Esther Kayakez MWINKEU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2453.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 9, 2005.
Decided: June 7, 2005.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song Park, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Esther Kayakez Mwinkeu, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider, filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2004); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5)(C) (2000). Mwinkeu's petition for review is timely only as to the Board's order denying reconsideration. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000) (petition for review must be filed within thirty days of final order of removal); see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394-95, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding order of removal and denial of motion to reconsider are separate final orders, each subject to relevant time limit for seeking review).
We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004). Therefore, 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