Case Name: Stella Engwarli TEKU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-14
Citations: 691 F. App'x 756
Docket Number: No. 16-2058
Parties: Stella Engwarli TEKU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 756–756

Head Matter:
Stella Engwarli TEKU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-2058
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2017
Decided: June 14, 2017
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, S. Nicole Nardone, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stella Engwarli Teku, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Teku's claims, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). We further find Teku's due process claim to be without merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Teku (B.I.A. Aug. 18, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
To the extent Teku seeks to challenge the Board's decision declining to reopen her proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review that aspect of its decision. Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400-01.