UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1927
BOLANLE O. ABIOLA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-345-946)
Submitted: March 17, 2004 Decided: April 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel D. Akpan, J.D., Ph.D., Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C.
Walters, Assistant Director, Jennifer L. Lightbody, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bolanle O. Abiola, a native and citizen of Nigeria, has
filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings and
remand to the immigration judge for adjustment of status. We deny
the petition for review.
Abiola first claims that the Board’s denial of her motion
to reopen violated her rights to equal protection because the Board
declined to extend Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253
(BIA 2002), to her employment-based immigrant visa petition.
Abiola maintains that the Board’s decision violated her right to
equal protection because it arbitrarily favors visa applicants
seeking adjustment of status who enter into a bona fide marriage
over visa applicants seeking adjustment of status based on their
employment status.
However, we find that Abiola does not allege a colorable
constitutional violation because she cannot establish that she has
a property or liberty interest at stake that would implicate either
equal protection or due process. Clearly, the decision to grant or
deny a motion to reopen is within the sound discretion of the
Board. “[A] constitutionally protected interest cannot arise from
relief that the executive exercises unfettered discretion to
award.” Appiah v. INS, 202 F.3d 704, 709 (4th Cir. 2000); see also
Smith v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 425, 429-30 (4th Cir. 2002).
- 2 -
Abiola also asks us to consider her challenge to the
alleged delay in the Attorney General’s adjudication of the
employment-based visa petition filed on her behalf. Because her
request for review contains “no attack upon the deportation order
or upon the proceeding in which it was entered,” Cheng Fan Kwok v.
INS, 392 U.S. 206, 217 (1968), we are without jurisdiction to reach
the merits of the claim. Our judicial review is available only
over a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2000).
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 -