Opinion
No. 19-1289
10-01-2019
MINILIK TESFAYE TESSEMA, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
James Algernon Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Algernon Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Joanna L. Watson, Trial Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Minilik Tesfaye Tessema, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing Tessema's appeal from the immigration judge's (IJ) order denying sua sponte reopening. We dismiss the petition for review.
"[B]ecause there are no meaningful standards by which to evaluate the [IJ]'s decision not to exercise its power to reopen," we lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of sua sponte reopening. Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 398-99 (4th Cir. 2009); see also Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016) (same). Even assuming we have jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte reopening to the extent the Board relied on an erroneous legal finding or legal premise, see Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588-89 (9th Cir. 2016), we conclude that Tessema fails to establish that review is warranted under this exception.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED