Fitta Wakene Geletu v. U. S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2196
FITTA WAKENE GELETU,
Petitioner,
versus
U. S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(A28-073-026)
Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: April 26, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, A. Ashley Tabaddor, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Fitta Wakene Geletu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. Geletu contends that
the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion because its
untimeliness was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel. See
Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999) (reviewing the
Board’s denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion).
We have reviewed the administrative record and 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. § 3.2(a), (c)(2) (2001); In re A-A-, Int. Dec. 3357 (BIA
1998) (en banc); In re Lei, Int. Dec. 3356 (BIA 1998) (en banc).
In addition, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Geletu failed to meet the requirements
for filing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as set forth
in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Accordingly,
we affirm the Board’s denial of relief. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the Board and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --