Case Name: Woioneshet W. MERSHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-10
Citations: 133 F. App'x 881
Docket Number: No. 04-2353
Parties: Woioneshet W. MERSHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 881–882

Head Matter:
Woioneshet W. MERSHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2353.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 31, 2005.
Decided June 10, 2005.
Maureen O’Sullivan, Kaplan, O’Sullivan & Friedman, Boston, Massachusetts, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Annette M. Wietecha, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Woioneshet W. Mersha, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider its decision denying relief on her motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Mersha contends that the Board erred in refusing to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen her removal proceedings. We find that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir.2003); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir.1999). In addition, to the extent that the motion to reconsider could be construed as a second motion to reopen, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board's finding that the motion is barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2005).
We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART