Case Name: Tsegaye TADESSE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-28
Citations: 61 F. App'x 879
Docket Number: No. 02-1833
Parties: Tsegaye TADESSE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Respondents.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 879–879

Head Matter:
Tsegaye TADESSE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Respondents.
No. 02-1833.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 26, 2003.
Decided April 28, 2003.
Gabriela S. Gergely, David A. Garfield, Law Office of David Garfield, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Leslie M. McKay, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tsegaye Tadesse seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") decision and order affirming the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings for consideration of his asylum application. Our review of the record discloses that the Board properly upheld the immigration judge's denial of the motion to reopen and that this petition is without merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See Tadesse v. INS, No. A-28-244-25 (B.I.A. July 15, 2002). 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.
Because Tadesse did not appeal the immigration judge's removal order to the Board, we cannot consider his claim that the immigration judge erred in deeming his first asylum application abandoned. See Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595-96 (4th Cir.1999); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990).