Kamara v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Kamara v. Gonzales

141 F. App'x 143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 10, 2005

Docket04-2079

StatusUnpublished

This text of 141 F. App'x 143 (Kamara 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

Kamara v. Gonzales, 141 F. App'x 143 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Aminata Florence Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. U.S. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th *144 Cir.1993). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. U.S. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc).

Kamara raises several issues in her brief, none of which have merit. We note the Board did not abuse its discretion denying the motion to reopen as untimely. Moreover, there was no evidence of changed circumstances within Sierra Leone. Thus, there was no reason to ignore the ninety-day period in which to file motions to reopen. We are without authority to review the Board’s decision not to sua sponte reopen the case. Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir.2003). We further find no authority to exercise our mandamus authority and to compel the Board to review the merits of the petition to reopen. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988).

Insofar as Kamara challenges the March 12, 2004 order summarily affirming the immigration judge’s order, we are without jurisdiction because Kamara did not file a timely petition for review. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (this time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny the motion for stay of removal. 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:

Aminata Florence Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. U.S. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th *144 Cir.1993). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. U.S. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc).

Kamara raises several issues in her brief, none of which have merit. We note the Board did not abuse its discretion denying the motion to reopen as untimely. Moreover, there was no evidence of changed circumstances within Sierra Leone. Thus, there was no reason to ignore the ninety-day period in which to file motions to reopen. We are without authority to review the Board’s decision not to sua sponte reopen the case. Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir.2003). We further find no authority to exercise our mandamus authority and to compel the Board to review the merits of the petition to reopen. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988).

Insofar as Kamara challenges the March 12, 2004 order summarily affirming the immigration judge’s order, we are without jurisdiction because Kamara did not file a timely petition for review. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (this time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny the motion for stay of removal. 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)

141 F. App'x 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamara-v-gonzales-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack