Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
BALDE v. H. HOLDER, 377 Fed.Appx. 578 (8th Cir. 2010)
Ibrahima Mamadou BALDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., AttorneyGeneral of the United States, Respondent., 377 F. App'x 578 (8th Cir. 2010)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2010-05-27
- Topic
- general
BALDE v. H. HOLDER, 377 Fed.Appx. 578 (8th Cir. 2010) Ibrahima Mamadou BALDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., AttorneyGeneral of the United States, Respondent.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed BALDE v. H. HOLDER, 377 Fed.Appx. 578 (8th Cir. 2010). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
BALDE v. H. HOLDER,377 Fed.Appx. 578(8th Cir. 2010)
Ibrahima Mamadou BALDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney
General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 09-2054.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 8, 2010.
Filed: May 27, 2010.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Khagendra Gharti Chhetry, Chhetry Associates, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Kathryn Deangelis, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Christina Bechak Parascandola, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Kathryn Deangelis, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Christina Bechak Parascandola, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BYE, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.Page 579
[UNPUBLISHED]
Ibrahima Mamadou Balde petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that refused to reopen Balde's removal proceedings in response to an untimely motion to reopen filed by Balde. Balde argues that the BIA should have exercised itssua spontepower to reopen the proceedings, pursuant to8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). The BIA's decision whether to exercise that power, however, is committed to agency discretion by law, and therefore unreviewable.Tamenut v. Mukasey,521 F.3d 1000,1005(8th Cir. 2008) (en banc);see5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). To the extent that Balde contends separately that the BIA "abused its discretion" by denying his untimely motion to reopen, the argument is simply another way of challenging the agency's refusal to actsua sponte. See Bornev. Holder,353 Fed. Appx. 523,524(2d Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩