UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2030
GOKAL CHAND KAPOOR,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-394-627)
Submitted: July 12, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S.
Wendtland, Assistant Director, Elizabeth J. Stevens, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gokal Chand Kapoor appeals the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying his motion to reconsider and to
reopen. To the extent Kapoor seeks to challenge the Board’s
December 18, 2002, order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision, we note Kapoor 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, 394, 405 (1995).
This Court reviews the Board’s denial of a motion to
reopen or a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992);
Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). Such motions
are especially disfavored “in a deportation proceeding, where, as
a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the
deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.”
Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323. We find the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the basis it was not
shown that the new evidence could not have been submitted in the
proceedings before the immigration judge. Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d
227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998). We further note the Board did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Kapoor failed
to effectively establish the level of past persecution necessary to
be eligible for a discretionary grant of asylum even if there is no
reasonable likelihood of present abuse.
- 2 -
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 -