Koikoi Guilavogui v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2072 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2072 KOIKOI GUILAVOGUI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher N. Lasch, Michael J. Wishnie, JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION, New Haven, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas B. Fatouros, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey R. Meyer, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Koikoi Guilavogui, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board s order and find no abuse of discretion the Board s decision See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) declining to grant reopening. (2009). in We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. Sept. 4, 2008). See In re: Guilavogui (B.I.A. With regard to Guilavogui s claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen his removal proceedings, we find that we are without jurisdiction to review any such determination, and thus dismiss the petition for review with respect to that claim. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We deny Guilavogui s motion to transfer the petition for review to the district court, and dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART 2

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.