Case Name: Praveen TULADHAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-27
Citations: 102 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 03-2363
Parties: Praveen TULADHAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 837–837

Head Matter:
Praveen TULADHAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-2363.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 12, 2004.
Decided: July 27, 2004.
Praveen Tuladhar, Petitioner pro se.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Blah' T. O’Connor, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WIDENER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Praveen Tuladhar, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003). See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992) (stating abuse of discretion standard); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999) (same). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, as 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 administrative record and the Board's decision and find no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to reopen proceedings where the motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2) (2003). Accordingly, we 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