UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2163
HENRI THOKA; THERESE DJUNKEU; I.C.P.T.,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 14, 2008 Decided: September 5, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Mona
Maria Yousif, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henri Thoka, Therese Djunkeu, and daughter, I.C.P.T., all
natives and citizens of Cameroon, petition for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying their motion
for the Board to exercise its discretion to sua sponte reconsider
the denial of their motion to reopen. It is undisputed that
Petitioners did not file a timely motion to reconsider. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). However, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), the
Board has authority sua sponte to reconsider a case in which it
issued a final decision, and Petitioners moved for the Board to
exercise this discretionary authority. We have reviewed the record
and conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ claim
that the Board should have exercised its discretionary authority to
reconsider sua sponte. See Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1004
(8th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d
153, 155 (2d Cir. 2007); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 n.1
(9th Cir. 2004); 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); Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999).
We accordingly dismiss the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
- 3 -