Razack v. INS

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ABDUL MAZEED ABDUL RAZACK, Petitioner,

v.

No. 99-2362

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

ABDUL MAZEED ABDUL RAZACK, Petitioner,

v.

No. 00-1063

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-370-521)

Submitted: June 27, 2000

Decided: July 12, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

No. 99-2362 dismissed and No. 00-1063 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia , for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Karen Fletcher Torstenson, Assistant Director, Cindy S. Ferrier , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Abdul Mazeed Abdul Razack seeks review of the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"): (1) denying Razack's request for a stay of deportation (No. 99-2362); and (2) denying Razack's motion to remand as untimely (No. 00- 1063).

Our review of the record discloses that the Board did not abuse its discretion in treating Razack's motion to remand as a motion to reopen. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 471 (BIA 1992). Further, we find that the Board properly denied Razack's motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) (2000). Accordingly, we affirm in No. 00-1063 on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Abdul Mazeed Abdul Razack, No. A72-370-521 (BIA Dec. 15, 1999).

We decline to address Razack's challenge to the Board's denial of his motion for stay of deportation because judicial review is available only as to a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a) (West 1999); see Gottesman v. INS, 33 F.3d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1994). Because the denial of a motion for a stay of deportation is not a final order of removal, we dismiss No. 99-2362 for lack of jurisdiction.

3

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.

No. 99-2362 - DISMISSED

No. 00-1063 - AFFIRMED