Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kalu v. Mukasey, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Daniel Okorie Kalu's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. The Court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Kalu's motion was untimely. The Court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review Kalu's claim that the BIA should have reopened his case using its sua sponte authority. Finally, the Court rejected Kalu's argument that the BIA failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-01-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-1530

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Daniel Okorie Kalu's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. The Court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Kalu's motion was untimely. The Court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review Kalu's claim that the BIA should have reopened his case using its sua sponte authority. Finally, the Court rejected Kalu's argument that the BIA failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Kalu v. Mukasey, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Daniel Okorie Kalu's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. The Court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Kalu's motion was untimely. The Court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review Kalu's claim that the BIA should have reopened his case using its sua sponte authority. Finally, the Court rejected Kalu's argument that the BIA failed to provide sufficient reasoning for its decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-1530

    DANIEL OKORIE KALU,


    Petitioner,
    versus
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
    Respondent.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals. (A72-166-563)

    Submitted:

    January 16, 2008

    Decided:

    January 29, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Eric Nwaubani, Lloyd F. Ukwu, UKWU & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED,


    Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
    Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director,
    Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Okorie Kalu, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen his immigration
    proceedings.
    Based on our review of the record, we find that the Board
    did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely
    filed.

    See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2) (2007).

    We further find that

    we lack jurisdiction to review Kalus claim that the Board should


    have

    exercised

    proceedings.

    its

    sua

    sponte

    power

    to

    reopen

    his

    removal

    Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006)

    (collecting cases).

    Finally, we find no merit to Kalus argument

    that the Board failed to provide a reasoned basis for its decision.
    We therefore 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 -

    You might also like