UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2079
AMINATA FLORENCE KAMARA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-505-736)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 10, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia; James T. Reynolds, PAUL
SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Aminata Florence Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra
Leone, petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We review the
Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24
(1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). A
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).
Kamara raises several issues in her brief, none of which
have merit. We note the Board did not abuse its discretion denying
the motion to reopen as untimely. Moreover, there was no evidence
of changed circumstances within Sierra Leone. Thus, there was no
reason to ignore the ninety-day period in which to file motions to
reopen. We are without authority to review the Board’s decision
not to sua sponte reopen the case. Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d
998, 1000-01 (10th Cir. 2003). We further find no authority to
exercise our mandamus authority and to compel the Board to review
the merits of the petition to reopen. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).
Insofar as Kamara challenges the March 12, 2004 order
summarily affirming the immigration judge’s order, we are without
- 2 -
jurisdiction because Kamara did not file a timely petition for
review. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (this time period
is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict
fidelity to [its] terms.”).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also
deny the motion for stay of removal. 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 -