UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1443
TAYE GEBRETSADIK TEKLE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-891-505)
Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A.
Hunolt, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Taye Gebretsadik Tekle, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s order denying
his motion to reopen and reconsider. We deny the petition for
review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider
with extreme deference and only for an abuse of discretion.
Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Such motions
are 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.” INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). “[A]dministrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000).
With respect to Tekle’s motion for reconsideration, he
failed to show any error of law or fact. With respect to his
request to reopen, Tekle failed to show that the evidence was
material and could not have been presented at the hearing. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2), (3) (2006). Accordingly, we find the
immigration judge did not abuse her discretion.
We find no abuse of discretion with the Board’s denial of
Tekle’s motion for a transcript. Insofar as Tekle seeks review of
the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
- 2 -
withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention
Against Torture, we are without jurisdiction. Tekle did not appeal
the immigration judge’s order to the Board. Consequently, he did
not exhaust his administrative remedies. See Asika v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d
697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990).
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 -