Case Name: Rose TCHAKOUNTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-08
Citations: 122 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 04-2080
Parties: Rose TCHAKOUNTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
Rose TCHAKOUNTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2080.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2005.
Decided: March 8, 2005.
Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rose Tchakounte, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen or reconsider its denial of her motion to reconsider, construed by the Board as a motion to reopen.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for an abuse of dis cretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999). Such motions are especially disfavored "in a deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States." Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323, 112 S.Ct. 719.
Tchakounte argues the Board should have reopened her proceeding under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h)—(iii) (2004). We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny the Government's motion to dismiss. 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