Case Name: Koikoi GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-21
Citations: 284 F. App'x 33
Docket Number: No. 07-1802
Parties: Koikoi GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 33–34

Head Matter:
Koikoi GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-1802.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 2, 2008.
Decided: July 21, 2008.
Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wishnie, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, New Haven, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoff-berg, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Koikoi Guilavogui, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying as untimely his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. 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. See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1147, 166 L.Ed.2d 997 (2007). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153, 155 (2d Cir.2007). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We deny Guilavogui's motion to hold this case in abeyance and 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.