USCA1 Opinion
December 9, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1378
STEPHEN O. DAWODU,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
____________________
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge, _____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and ____________________
Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Stephen O. Dawodu on brief pro se. _________________
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, _________________
Nelda C. Reyna and Richard M. Evans, Attorneys, Office of Immigration _______________ ________________
Litigation, Civil Division, on brief for respondent.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Petitioner Stephen Dawodu seeks review __________
of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion
seeking reconsideration of the Board's dismissal of his
appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his motion to
reopen his deportation proceedings. We deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board in its decisions
dated February 23, 1994 and April 8, 1994. We add only the
following brief comments.
On appeal, Dawodu suggests that one of the
questions before us is the validity of his deportation order.
We disagree. Since Dawodu failed to file any appeal from
that order, the only issue before us is essentially whether
his motion to reopen was properly denied. See Aiyadurai v. ___ _________
INS, 683 F.2d 1195, 1198-99 (8th Cir. 1982). Dawodu's ___
argument that he should not be deported because he had a
valid, approved visa petition is not relevant to that issue.
Other arguments that Dawodu raises now were not presented to
the Board and thus are deemed waived. See Thomas v. INS, 976 ___ ______ ___
F.2d 786, 789 (1st Cir. 1992). Finally, the plain language
of 8 U.S.C. 1252b(c)(3)(A) forecloses rescission of
deportation orders if a motion to reopen is not timely filed
under the statute. Therefore, to the extent that the
immigration judge may have believed that he had discretion to
consider Dawodu's motion despite the statutory bar, he erred.
-2-
The petition for review is denied. __________________________________
-3-