Case Name: Kokou Magbede TOUGNON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-30
Citations: 521 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 13-1104
Parties: Kokou Magbede TOUGNON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 274–274

Head Matter:
Kokou Magbede TOUGNON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-1104.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 15, 2013.
Decided: May 30, 2013.
Kokou Magbede Tougnon, Petitioner Pro Se. Edward Earl Wiggers, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, 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Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kokou Magbede Tougnon, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record and Tougnon's contentions, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We accordingly deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Tougnon (B.I.A. Dec. 28, 2012). We further find that we do not have jurisdiction to review Tougnon's claim that the Board abused its discretion in declining to reopen his removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.2009). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to this claim.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.