Case Name: Haileselassie Beyene TESSFAY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 155 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 04-2565
Parties: Haileselassie Beyene TESSFAY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Haileselassie Beyene TESSFAY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2565.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 24, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 12, 2005.
Fitsum A. Alemu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United
States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Haileselassie Beyene Tessfay, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings.
We review a denial of a motion to reopen 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).
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Tessfay's motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (2005).
We accordingly deny the petition for review. We also deny Tessfay's motion to remand. 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