Soo Kyang Kim v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 4th Cir. 2004 , cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 2005 .…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1546
SOO KYANG KIM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-729-173)
Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence S. Kerben, Kew Gardens, New York, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, Aaron J. Burstein, N. Christopher Hardee, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*Kim seeks to argue in this court that counsel was ineffective
in failing to accurately notify her of the need for her to attend
the hearing. As this claim was not raised before the Board, we
have no jurisdiction to consider the argument because Kim failed to
satisfy the exhaustion requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d) (2000).
See Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert.
denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM.
Soo Kyang Kim, a native and citizen of South Korea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of a
motion to reopen. Kim sought rescission of a final order of
removal entered in absentia. She claimed reopening was warranted
because her absence was due to her failure to receive adequate
notice of the hearing, and due to ineffective assistance of
counsel, an exceptional circumstance beyond her control. * We deny
the petition for review.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). A denial of a motion to reopen must
be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do
not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor
motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990)
(en banc). We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --