Case Name: Yoseph Nigatu BEZABEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-15
Citations: 174 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 05-1697
Parties: Yoseph Nigatu BEZABEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
Yoseph Nigatu BEZABEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-1697.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2006.
Decided March 15, 2006.
Alan M. Parra, Law Office of Alan M. Parra, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez-Wright, Assistant Director, Diane Kelleher, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yoseph Nigatu Bezabeh, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings.
A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc).
The Board ruled that Bezabeh did not warrant the exercise of favorable discretion because he did not produce evidence sufficient to overcome the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding. We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Bezabeh fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we find that no abuse of dis cretion occurred, and therefore 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.