Case Name: Alexander MINGOLE-KAYESSE; Lydia Claire Kayesse, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-03
Citations: 36 F. App'x 84
Docket Number: No. 01-2478
Parties: Alexander MINGOLE-KAYESSE; Lydia Claire Kayesse, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
Alexander MINGOLE-KAYESSE; Lydia Claire Kayesse, Petitioners, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 01-2478.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2002.
Decided June 3, 2002.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Immigration Assistance Center, Incorporated, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, John J. Andre, Senior Litigation, Edward C. Durant, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Alexander Mingole-Kayesse and Lydia Claire Kayesse, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Cameroon, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their applications for suspension of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the BIA's decision and conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying their motion to file their brief out of time. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.3(c)(1) (2001); Huicochea-Gomez v. INS, 237 F.3d 696, 700-01 (6th Cir.2001). We further conclude the BIA used the correct standard to review the immigration judge's assessment of the Kayesses' credibility. See Matter of A-S-Interim Decision 3336 (BIA 1998). In addition, we defer to the BIA's credibility determination and find that the Kayesses did not meet their burden of establishing they were eligible for suspension of deportation. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-83, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78-79 (4th Cir.1989).
Accordingly, we affirm the BIA's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.