UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1987
ABIY AEMIRO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-509-117)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 13, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK,
Riverdale, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Jeffrey J.
Bernstein, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Abiy Aemiro, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
denying his motion to reopen its previous order dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323-24 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.
1999). The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with
extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate
reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to
reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).
A motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will
be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and
shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2004). “A motion to reopen proceedings
shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence
sought to be offered is material and was not available and could
not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id.
We have reviewed the administrative record, the immigration judge’s
decision, and the Board’s orders and find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
- 2 -
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 -