Tchammouo Robert Ledoux v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 1992

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1105
TCHAMMOUO ROBERT LEDOUX,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-204-398)
Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: October 4, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick G. Tzeuton, LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK TZEUTON AND ASSOCIATES,
Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Civil Division, Larry A. Brown, Natural Resources Section,
Environmental and Natural Resources Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert Ledoux Tchammouo, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We
review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445
F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). Denial of a motion to reopen must be
reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not
contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such
motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).
This court reverses the Board’s denial of such a motion only if the
denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry, 445
F.3d at 745. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion to reopen. 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 --