UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1889
GEORGE BUNGHA LEVAI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-263-205)
Submitted: August 3, 2007 Decided: August 24, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Kristin K. Edison,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Bungha Levai, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider its previous
order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s decision. We
note that only the Board’s denial of Levai’s motion to reconsider
is properly before this Court as he failed to timely petition this
Court for review of the Board’s initial order.* Therefore, Levai’s
only cognizable argument before this Court is that the Board’s
denial of Levai’s motion to reconsider was arbitrary and contrary
to law. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find
that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Levai’s
motion for failing to present clear and convincing evidence
indicating a strong likelihood that his marriage is bona fide, as
required by Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (BIA
2002). 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 in the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
*
The filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the Board
does not toll the thirty-day period for seeking review of an
underlying order. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394 (1995).
- 2 -