Vivian A. Umeugo v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 1992

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2426
VIVIAN A. UMEUGO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-319-492)
Submitted: May 18, 2005 Decided: June 8, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel D. Akpan, J.D., Ph.D., Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Allen W.
Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ari Nazarov, Office of
Immigration Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vivian Amuche Umeugo, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of a
motion to reopen. Umeugo sought rescission of a final order of
removal entered in absentia. She claimed reopening was warranted
because her absence was due to exceptional circumstances 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) (2004); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234
(4th Cir. 1993). 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.
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 --