UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1984
PATRICIA EKWOPI OSONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Gary J. Newkirk, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Ekwopi Osong, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen as
untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the
administrative record and Osong’s contentions, and conclude that
the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012). We accordingly deny the
petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re: Osong (B.I.A. July 13, 2012). We further find that
we do not have jurisdiction to review Osong’s claim that the
Board abused its discretion in declining to reopen her removal
proceedings sua sponte. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397,
400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Likewise, we lack jurisdiction over her
ineffective assistance of counsel claim because she failed to
file a petition for review of the Board’s order of September 12,
2011 addressing that claim. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405
(1995). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part
with respect to these claims.
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3