Case Name: Christian T. MBOUENDE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-28
Citations: 124 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 04-1458
Parties: Christian T. MBOUENDE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
Christian T. MBOUENDE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-1458.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 18, 2005.
Decided: March 28, 2005.
Steffanie J. Lewis, International Business Law Firm, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lyle D. Jentzer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christian T. Mbouende, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). We further find that we lack jurisdiction to review Mbouende's claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen his proceedings. Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249-50 (5th Cir.2004); Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir.2003); Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir.2003); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir.1999).
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