UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1780
ABDOULAYE MOMO CAMARA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-575-398)
Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: January 29, 2004
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Margaret J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer L.
Lightbody, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Abdoulaye Momo Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen and reconsider its
decision affirming the order of the immigration judge. Camara had
sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. To the extent that Camara attempts to
challenge the Board’s January 28, 2003 order affirming the decision
of the immigration judge without opinion, Camara’s failure to
timely petition for review from that decision deprives us of
jurisdiction to review such claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)
(2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995).
Camara alleges to this court, as he did in his motion to
reconsider, that the Board’s retroactive application of procedural
streamlining procedures to his appeal violated his rights. We
rejected that argument in Khattak v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 250, 253
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 72 U.S.L.W. 3282 (U.S.
Dec. 1, 2003) (No. 03-521). Camara also disputes the Board’s
decision denying relief on his motion to reconsider. We have
reviewed the record and the Board’s order of May 28, 2003, and find
that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
- 3 -