Guilavogui v. Mukasey

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 21, 2008
Docket07-1802
StatusUnpublished

This text of Guilavogui v. Mukasey (Guilavogui v. Mukasey) 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
Guilavogui v. Mukasey, (4th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1802

KOIKOI GUILAVOGUI,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: June 2, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wishnie, JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION, New Haven, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Koikoi Guilavogui, a native and citizen of Guinea,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying as untimely his motion to reopen

immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the

Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion

in denying the motion to reopen. See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d

741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007).

Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to

invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Zhao

Quon Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153, 155 (2d Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review. We deny Guilavogui’s motion to hold this case in abeyance

and 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

- 2 -

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

Related

Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales
492 F.3d 153 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Smith v. Nicholson
127 S. Ct. 1147 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Guilavogui v. Mukasey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilavogui-v-mukasey-ca4-2008.