Carol Amaka Ume v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 393 1995 concluding that when “amending the [Immigration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1667
CAROL AMAKA UME,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General for the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-618-284)
Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 10, 2005
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oscar L. Amorow, AMOROW & KUM, P.A., Takoma Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James S.
Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sarah Maloney, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*While we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s denial of
Ume’s motion to reopen because she did not petition for review of
that order within thirty days, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000), we
conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the Board’s order
denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6)
(2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 393 (1995) (concluding that
when “amending the [Immigration and Nationality Act] Congress chose
to depart from the ordinary judicial treatment of agency orders
under reconsideration”).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Carol Amaka Ume, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its denial of
her motion to reopen removal proceedings. * We have reviewed the
administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board
did not abuse its discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,
323-24 (1992). Additionally, we conclude that Ume’s due process
claim is without merit. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362
F.3d 272, 278 (4th Cir. 2004); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 321-22,
324 (4th Cir. 2002). 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 --