Koffi Kpognon v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 4th Cir. 2004 holding court lacks jurisdiction to…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2422
KOFFI KPOGNON,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-781-031)
Submitted: August 28, 2006 Decided: September 19, 2006
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*Although Kpognon subsequently presented the claim to the
Board in a motion to reconsider, no petition for review of the
Board’s order denying that motion has been filed.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Koffi Kpognon, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We
have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Kpognon’s motion to
reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). We conclude
that Kpognon’s equitable tolling argument was not administratively
exhausted and is therefore not properly before the court. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal
only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies
available . . . .”); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th
Cir. 2004) (holding court lacks jurisdiction to consider a claim
that was not raised before the Board and was therefore not
exhausted under § 1252(d)(1)). * Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:
Kpognon, No. A76-781-031 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2005). 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 --