Woioneshet W. Mersha v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 3d Cir. 2003

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2353
WOIONESHET W. MERSHA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A75-350-653)
Submitted: May 31, 2005 Decided: June 10, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Maureen O’Sullivan, KAPLAN, O’SULLIVAN & FRIEDMAN, Boston,
Massachusetts, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Annette M.
Wietecha, U.S. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Woioneshet W. Mersha, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider its decision
denying relief on her motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Mersha contends that the Board erred in refusing to
exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen her removal
proceedings. We find that we lack jurisdiction to review this
claim. See Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d
Cir. 2003); Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002);
Luis v. INS, 196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999). In addition, to
the extent that the motion to reconsider could be construed as a
second motion to reopen, we find no abuse of discretion in the
Board’s finding that the motion is barred. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a), (c) (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
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --