Case Name: Vera SAMODOUMOVA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-28
Citations: 110 F. App'x 388
Docket Number: No. 03-60860
Parties: Vera SAMODOUMOVA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 388–389

Head Matter:
Vera SAMODOUMOVA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60860.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Sept. 28, 2004.
Magali S. Candler, Tindall & Foster, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Madeline Henley, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Mark C. Walters, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before JONES, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vera Samodoumova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of her appeal and denial of motions to remand. Because only the District Director may adjudicate her pending application for adjustment of status, Samodoumova argues that the Immigration Judge ("IJ") or the BIA should have reopened her case and remanded it to the District Director.
We recently addressed a similar argument that the BIA should have compelled the IJ to reopen a deportation case. Because "no meaningful standard exists against which to judge an IJ's decision to exercise sua sponte authority to reopen deportation proceedings," we lack jurisdiction to review the decision not to reopen. Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir.2004) (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.