UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1402
UDO OGONNAYA IJOMAH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-027-600)
Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 10, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kele Onyejekwe, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director,
Jamie M. Dowd, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Udo Ogonnaya Ijomah, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
We have reviewed the record and the immigration judge’s order and
find that the immigration judge did not abuse her discretion in
denying Ijomah’s motion to reopen. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323-24 (1992). We find that Ijomah’s motion to reopen was
untimely filed, see 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(1) (2001), and that Ijomah
failed to qualify for any of the exceptions to the timeliness
requirement.
Additionally, to the extent that Ijomah claims that the
Board’s use of the summary affirmance procedure as set forth in
8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004) violated her rights under the Due
Process Clause, we find that this claim is squarely foreclosed by
our decision in Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272 (4th
Cir. 2004). We further find that summary affirmance was
appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in
§ 1003.1(e)(4).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also
deny Ijomah’s motion for summary reversal. 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 -