UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1786
ALEMEYHU KENNO KASSA; ETSEGENET SHELEMU
KASSAHUN,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General for the United
States of America,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-677-418, A70-677-419)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: April 9, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William O. SanFord, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioners.
Robert D. McCallum, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C.
Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brenda M. O’Malley, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alemeyhu Kenno Kassa and Etsegenet Shelemu Kassahun, husband
and wife, and natives and citizens of Ethiopia, seek review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying
their motion to reconsider. The petition for review is untimely as
to the March 21, 2002, order affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying their application for asylum and withholding of
deportation. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995).
The petition for review is timely as to the Board’s denial of
the motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the
Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion.
See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(b)(2) (2002); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-
24 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993).
We deny as untimely the petition for review as to the Board’s
order of March 21, 2002. We deny the petition for review upon
finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion for reconsideration. We deny the motion for summary
affirmance. 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
2