UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1688
REMI CHIDE NJOKU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General; MICHAEL
CHERTOFF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
EMILIO GONZALEZ, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services; GREGORY L. COLLETT, District Director, Baltimore
District Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
CALVIN MCCORMICK, Field Office Director, Office of Detention
and Removal Operations, Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; GEORGE WILLIAM MAUGANS,
III, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Remi Chide Njoku, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Tyrone Sojourner, Jem Colleen Sponzo, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C.; George William Maugans, III, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Remi Chide Njoku, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s
decision declining to grant reopening. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a), (c) (2008). We therefore deny the petition for
review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:
Njoku (B.I.A. May 20, 2008). With regard to Njoku’s challenge
to the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority, we
find that we are without jurisdiction to review that aspect of
the Board’s decision, and thus dismiss the petition for review
with respect to that claim. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).
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
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3
Njoku v. Holder
Combined Opinion