Case Name: Alejandro GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent; Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent; Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-15
Citations: 304 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: Nos. 06-1938, 07-1143, 07-1683
Parties: Alejandro GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent. Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Alejandro GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent. Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 06-1938, 07-1143, 07-1683.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 15, 2008.
Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, Thomas H. Tousley, Elliot & Mayock, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, a native and citizen of Peru, seeks review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge's discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status and denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. We have fully considered Gonzales-Silva's contentions, and conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the Board's order affirming the discretionary denial of adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006). Next, we have reviewed Gonzales-Silva's arguments and find no abuse of discretion in the Board's orders denying Gonzales-Silva's motions to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir.2008).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.