The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-1186•Kpegnon Assoumanou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General
14-1186Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 9, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1186
KPEGNON ASSOUMANOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: October 9, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Katharine E. Clark, Senior Litigation Counsel, E. Tayo
Otunla, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Kpegnon Assoumanou, a native and citizen of Togo,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen. We have
thoroughly reviewed the motion, including Assoumanou’s affidavit
and the various documentary exhibits and conclude that the Board
did not abuse its discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,
323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir.
2009); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (2014). We are without
jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not to sua sponte
reopen the proceedings. Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400-01.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board. See In re: Assoumanou (B.I.A. Jan. 31,
2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.