In re: Azo, Nos. A76-418-281, A76-418-282, A76-418-284, A76-418-285 (B.I.A. Aug. 24, 2005).…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2052
JEAN KOUASSI AZO; SIMONE AFIAVI HOUNSOUNOU;
ULLANDA J C AZO; BADICHE C I AZO,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-418-281; A76-418-282; A76-418-284; A76-418-285)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 23, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ana T. Jacobs, ANA T. JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Aviva L. Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Dennis M. Wong, OFFICE
OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Dublin, California, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jean Kouassi Azo, and dependent petitioners Simone Afiavi
Hounsounou, Ullanda Azo, and Badiche Azo, all natives and citizens
of Benin, petition this court for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board). The Board adopted and affirmed the
Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status,
denied Azo’s motion to reopen and reconsider his asylum claim, and
rejected his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of
counsel.
First, we have considered Azo’s challenge to the
discretionary denial of adjustment of status and conclude that we
lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(B),
(D) (West 2005); Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419-20 (4th Cir.
2006). Next, we have reviewed the record and the Board’s decision
and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
Azo’s motion to reopen and reconsider. See INS v. Doherty, 502
U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). We thus
affirm the denial of the motion for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In Re: Azo, Nos. A76-418-281, A76-418-282, A76-418-284,
A76-418-285 (B.I.A. Aug. 24, 2005).
We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --