UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1478
ASHUKEM TARH NKWANYUO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-892-913)
Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 14, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret J. Perry, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Deborah N. Misir, Office of Immigration
Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ashukem Tarh Nkwanyuo, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen and reconsider.
On April 12, 2002, the Board entered an order affirming
the immigration judge’s order denying asylum and other forms of
relief. Nkwanyuo did not file a petition for review from that
order. He did file a motion to reopen and reconsider with the
Board. The Board denied the motion to reconsider because it was
untimely. It denied the motion to reopen because the proffered
evidence did not alter the finding that Nkwanyuo failed to present
a credible claim for asylum.
To the extent Nkwanyuo challenges the April 12 order, we
are without jurisdiction to review it because he did not file a
timely petition for review from that order. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). The
filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the Board does not
toll the thirty-day period for seeking review of the underlying
order. Id. at 394.
The Board’s denial of the motion to reconsider is not a
question before us. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). “A motion to reopen proceedings shall
not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought
- 2 -
to be offered is material and was not available and could not have
been discovered or presented at the former hearing . . . .” 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(l) (2003).
We find the Board did not abuse its discretion denying
the motion to reopen. Accordingly, 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
- 3 -