Faulknor v. Mukasey, No. 07-1297 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1297 RADLEY ALEXANDER FAULKNOR, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-836-265) Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Radley Jamaica, Alexander petitions for Faulknor, review of a an native order and of citizen the Board of of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying as untimely his motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of § the entry of 1229a(c)(7)(A), a final (C) § 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). order (West 2005 of & removal. Supp. 8 2007); U.S.C.A. 8 C.F.R. We review the Board s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening disfavor motions to reopen. Cir. 1990) (en banc). and the applicable regulations M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th In explaining the degree of deference given to the agency s discretionary review, this court has observed that the decision to deny a motion to reopen need only be reasoned, not convincing. omitted). Id. at 310 (internal quotation marks and citation We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). - 2 - There is no doubt that Faulknor s motion to reopen was untimely. Accordingly, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. for review. We deny the petition 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 - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
