Case Name: Rifaqat ALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-04
Citations: 326 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 08-2042
Parties: Rifaqat ALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
Rifaqat ALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-2042.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 7, 2009.
Decided: June 4, 2009.
Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia; Paul Shearman Allen, Paul Shear-man Allen & Associates, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rifaqat Ali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his 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 as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2008). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ali (B.I.A. Sep. 23, 2008). We lack jurisdiction over Ali's challenge to the Board's refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.