Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Guilavogui v. Mukasey, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Koikoi Guilavogui's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had denied Guilavogui's motion to reopen his immigration proceedings as untimely. The Court found that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. Additionally, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to use its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Therefore, the Court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-1802

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Koikoi Guilavogui's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had denied Guilavogui's motion to reopen his immigration proceedings as untimely. The Court found that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. Additionally, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to use its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Therefore, the Court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    Guilavogui v. Mukasey, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Koikoi Guilavogui's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had denied Guilavogui's motion to reopen his immigration proceedings as untimely. The Court found that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. Additionally, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to use its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Therefore, the Court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    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,

    native

    and

    citizen

    of

    Guinea,

    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals

    (Board)

    denying

    immigration proceedings.

    as

    untimely

    his

    motion

    to

    reopen

    We have reviewed the record and the

    Boards 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 Boards refusal to
    See Zhao

    invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings.


    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.
    and

    We deny Guilavoguis motion to hold this case in abeyance

    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 -

    You might also like