UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1527
PHANEL PIERRE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-450-944)
Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: January 17, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C.
Walters, Assistant Director, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation
Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Phanel Pierre, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider its previous order
affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Based on our review of the record, we find that the Board
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely
filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (2005). We further find that
we lack jurisdiction to review Pierre’s claim that the Board should
have exercised its sua sponte power to reconsider or reopen his
removal proceedings. See Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405, 410-11
(6th Cir. 2004); Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246,
249-50 (5th Cir. 2004); Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01
(10th Cir. 2003); Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75
(3d Cir. 2003); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.
2002); Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999).
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
- 2 -