Case Name: Ekoua JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-01
Citations: 132 F. App'x 498
Docket Number: No. 04-2159
Parties: Ekoua JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 498–498

Head Matter:
Ekoua JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2159.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 18, 2005.
Decided June 1, 2005.
Linda Hanten, Cecil C. Harrigan, Harrigan & Hanten, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden, Robert J. Higgins, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ekoua Johnson, a native of Togo and citizen of the Ivory Coast, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen and reconsider, filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), (c)(1) (2005); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(5), (6) (2000). Johnson's petition for review is timely only as to the Board's order denying reopening and reconsideration. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000) (petition for review must be filed within thirty days of final order of removal); see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394-95, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding order of removal and denial of motion to reconsider are separate final orders, each subject to relevant time limit for seeking review).
We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005). Therefore, 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