Case Name: Dionishiah Wanjiru MWAURA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-17
Citations: 261 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 07-1753
Parties: Dionishiah Wanjiru MWAURA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Dionishiah Wanjiru MWAURA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-1753.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 9, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 17, 2008.
Winston Wen-Hsiung Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dionishiah Wanjiru Mwaura, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings as a matter of discretion. Based on our review of the record, we find we lack jurisdiction to review Mwaura's claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her deportation proceedings. See Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153, 155 (2d Cir.2007); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004); Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405, 410-11 (6th Cir.2004); Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir.2004); Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir.2003); Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir.2003); Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir.1999). To the extent Mwaura attempts to avoid the jurisdictional bar by claiming a constitutional violation or a question of law, we find the claim is without merit.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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 DISMISSED.