Ally v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Ally v. Gonzales

223 F. App'x 269

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 6, 2007·No. 06-1863·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Abdalla Said Ally, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1147, — L.Ed.2d-(2007).

The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). This court reverses the Board’s denial of such a motion only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry, 445 F.3d at 745. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be *270 fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Abdalla Said Ally, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1147, — L.Ed.2d-(2007).

The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). This court reverses the Board’s denial of such a motion only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry, 445 F.3d at 745. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be *270 fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.

Ally v. Gonzales, 223 F. App'x 269 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

223 F. App'x 269 (Ally v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related