Menbere v. Mukasey

Fourth Circuit

Menbere v. Mukasey

257 F. App'x 688

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 2007

Docket07-1636

StatusUnpublished

This text of 257 F. App'x 688 (Menbere 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

Menbere v. Mukasey, 257 F. App'x 688 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dino Menbere, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (West 2005 & Supp. 2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir.2006). 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. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). In explaining the degree of deference given to the agency’s discretionary review, this court has observed that the decision to deny a motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not convincing.” Id. at 310 (quotation marks and citation omitted). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1147, 166 L.Ed.2d 997 (2007).

There is no doubt that Menbere’s motion to reopen was untimely. We further find no error with the Board’s finding that Menbere did not show due diligence excusing the late filing. Accordingly, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. 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:

Dino Menbere, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review.

An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (West 2005 & Supp. 2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir.2006). 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. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). In explaining the degree of deference given to the agency’s discretionary review, this court has observed that the decision to deny a motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not convincing.” Id. at 310 (quotation marks and citation omitted). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1147, 166 L.Ed.2d 997 (2007).

There is no doubt that Menbere’s motion to reopen was untimely. We further find no error with the Board’s finding that Menbere did not show due diligence excusing the late filing. Accordingly, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. 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)

257 F. App'x 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menbere-v-mukasey-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack