Praveen Tuladhar v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 1992 stating abuse of discretion standard

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2363
PRAVEEN TULADHAR,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-691-515)
Submitted: May 12, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Praveen Tuladhar, Petitioner Pro Se. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Blair T.
O’Connor, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Praveen Tuladhar, a native and citizen of Nepal,
petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We review the denial
of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2003). See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24
(1992) (stating abuse of discretion standard); Stewart v. INS, 181
F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999) (same). A denial of a motion to
reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, as 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 have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s decision and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s
refusal to reopen proceedings where the motion to reopen was
untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2) (2003). 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

-- 2 of 2 --