Woldetsadik v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Woldetsadik v. Gonzales

159 F. App'x 518

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 2005

Docket05-1357

StatusUnpublished

This text of 159 F. App'x 518 (Woldetsadik 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

Woldetsadik v. Gonzales, 159 F. App'x 518 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Aynalem Woldetsadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We review the Board’s denial of a motion *519 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. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th 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. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc).

We note the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely or barred by the numerical limitation. In addition, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding Woldetsadik did not support her claim of changed circumstances.

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:

Aynalem Woldetsadik, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. We review the Board’s denial of a motion *519 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. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th 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. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc).

We note the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely or barred by the numerical limitation. In addition, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding Woldetsadik did not support her claim of changed circumstances.

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)

159 F. App'x 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woldetsadik-v-gonzales-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack