Case Name: Juliana Nanda TCHENKWO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-27
Citations: 136 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 04-2559
Parties: Juliana Nanda TCHENKWO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
Juliana Nanda TCHENKWO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2559.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2005.
Decided June 27, 2005.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juliana Nanda Tchenkwo, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider, filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2005). Tchenkwo's petition for review is timely only as to the Board's order denying reconsideration. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000) (petition for review must be filed within thirty days of final order of removal); see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394-95, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (holding order of removal and denial of motion to reconsider are separate final orders, each subject to relevant time limit for seeking review).
We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005). Therefore, 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