Jennifer Yawa Sedodo Smith v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 3d Cir. 2003

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1740
JENNIFER YAWA SEDODO SMITH,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A28-068-154)
Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 25, 2005
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinot, SEGUINOT LAW FIRM, McLean, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keiser, Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina,
Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, Barry J. Pettinato, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Yawa Sedodo Smith, a native and citizen of
Ghana, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen
deportation proceedings. Though she does not dispute the Board’s
finding that her motion to reopen was untimely filed, Smith
contends that the Board abused its discretion in failing to employ
its sua sponte authority to grant the motion to reopen. We find
that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See
Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir. 2003);
Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002); Luis v. INS,
196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999).
Smith also contends that the Board violated her right to
due process when it granted her voluntary departure pursuant to its
order of January 11, 2001, but failed to advise her of the
consequences of failure to depart. In addition, she asserts that
the Board exceeded its authority in granting her voluntary
departure pursuant to the same order. As the January 11, 2001
order is not before us in this appeal, we lack jurisdiction over
these claims as well. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405-06
(1995).
We accordingly dismiss 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 DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --