Case Name: Yissa OUOLOGUEM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 469 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 11-1789
Parties: Yissa OUOLOGUEM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Yissa OUOLOGUEM, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-1789.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 6, 2012.
Decided: March 20, 2012.
Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lori B. Warlick, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yissa Ouologuem petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative 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) (2011); Na rine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ouologuem (B.I.A. June 24, 2011). We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.