Case Name: Kasangisha Papy KABANGU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-30
Citations: 207 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 05-2413
Parties: Kasangisha Papy KABANGU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 302–302

Head Matter:
Kasangisha Papy KABANGU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-2413.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 8, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2006.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Office of Immigration Litigation; Karen E. Torrent, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kasangisha Papy Kabangu, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reconsider its prior order, which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge's denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 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 reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Kabangu, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2005). 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.