Case Name: HYANG KYU SMART, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-19
Citations: 258 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 06-1468
Parties: HYANG KYU SMART, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 622–622

Head Matter:
HYANG KYU SMART, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1468.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 19, 2007.
John Bodner, Jr., Pradeep Victor, Howrey, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Stanton Braverman, Braverman & Lin, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Song E. Park, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hyang Kyu Smart, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks review of the April 4, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. See In re: Smart, No. [ AXXXXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 4, 2006). In her brief, Smart reiterates arguments relevant to the Board's underlying order of January 26, 2006, finding no jurisdiction to consider her application for adjustment of status. See In re: Smart, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 2006). We note that the underlying order is not before us for review and that Smart does not advance any arguments relevant to the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).
Accordingly, we are constrained to 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.