Isatah Mary Conteh v. John Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2294
ISATAH MARY CONTEH,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A29-369-211)
Submitted: May 19, 2004 Decided: July 7, 2004
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Irena I. Karpinski, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Papu Sandhu, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Isaac R. Campbell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

1 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) repealed 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252b(a)(1)(F) & (a)(2)
effective April 1, 1997. Nearly identical language now appears in
8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1)(F) & 1229a(5)(b) (1999). Under the IIRIRA,
§§ 1252b(a)(1)(F) & (a)(2) continue to apply because this case was
in progress before the act was passed.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Isatah Mary Conteh, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to
deny her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have
reviewed the record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in upholding the denial of Conteh’s motion to reopen.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,
323-24 (1992). The record reveals that the notice was mailed to
Conteh’s last known address and that she failed to keep the
immigration court apprised of changes in her address. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252b(a)(1)(F) (1994) (“[T]he alien must provide the Attorney
General immediately with a written record of any change of the
alien’s address”); 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1994) 1 (“[W]ritten
notice shall not be required under this paragraph if the alien has
failed to provide the address required under subsection
(a)(1)(F)”); Dominguez v. United States Atty. Gen., 284 F.3d 1258,
1260 (11th Cir. 2002). We find no abuse of discretion under these
circumstances. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --