Fye v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Fye v. Gonzales

139 F. App'x 554

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 2005

Docket04-2532

StatusUnpublished

This text of 139 F. App'x 554 (Fye v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fye v. Gonzales, 139 F. App'x 554 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ramatouille Fye, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider the Board’s dismissal of her appeal. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir.1993). Fye also claims that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her proceedings. Other federal appellate courts have found they lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte power. 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); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir.1999). Even were we to assume jurisdiction, however, we would find no reversible error in this case.

Accordingly, we deny 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ramatouille Fye, a native and citizen of The Gambia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider the Board’s dismissal of her appeal. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir.1993). Fye also claims that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen her proceedings. Other federal appellate courts have found they lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte power. 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); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002); Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir.1999). Even were we to assume jurisdiction, however, we would find no reversible error in this case.

Accordingly, we deny 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fye-v-gonzales-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack