Case Name: Berhanu Guggsa GEMEDA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-27
Citations: 102 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 03-2206
Parties: Berhanu Guggsa GEMEDA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Respondent.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 837–838

Head Matter:
Berhanu Guggsa GEMEDA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Respondent.
No. 03-2206.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2004.
Decided: July 27, 2004.
Thomas Hailu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Loeb, Stephanie R. Marcus, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Berhanu Guggsa Gemeda petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") finding that he failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the immigration judge to reopen the removal proceedings. Gemeda contends: (1) mere tardiness is not a failure to appear; (2) he established his failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances; and (3) he was denied the right to due process. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
This Court's review of the Board's denial of a motion to reopen is extremely deferential, and the decision will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion. Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999). Motions to reopen are disfavored. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (2003). We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Gemeda failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting granting a motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1) (2000). In addition, Gemeda was not denied the right to due process. Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 548 (9th Cir.1996). Moreover, we find Gemeda's argument that the Board failed to follow its own precedent is without merit.
Accordingly, we deny 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