Case Name: Abdalla Said ALLY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-06
Citations: 223 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 06-1863
Parties: Abdalla Said ALLY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
Abdalla Said ALLY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1863.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2007.
Decided: April 6, 2007.
Fatai A. Suleman, Amity, Rum & Suleman, P.A., Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Reisler, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, Dimitri N. Rocha, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Abdalla Said Ally, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions for review of an 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. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1147, — L.Ed.2d-(2007).
The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). This court reverses the Board's denial of such a motion only if the denial is "arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law." Barry, 445 F.3d at 745. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.