Case Name: Amede Molimi Bula BULA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-06
Citations: 103 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 03-1751
Parties: Amede Molimi Bula BULA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Amede Molimi Bula BULA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 03-1751.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 6, 2004.
Ana T. Jacobs, Ana T. Jacobs & Associates, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Amede Molimi Bula Bula, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Additionally, we conclude Bula Bula's claims that the Board's new streamlining regulations, pursuant to which his appeal was decided by a single Board member, were impermissibly retroactive, inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, and in violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause are foreclosed by Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th Cir.2004), in which we concluded to the contrary.
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