Patricia Osong v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-1984 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1984 PATRICIA EKWOPI OSONG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 19, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gary J. Newkirk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Patricia Cameroon, petitions Immigration untimely Ekwopi Appeals and for Osong, review (Board) a of denying numerically barred. native an order her We and of motion have citizen the to of Board of reopen as reviewed the administrative record and Osong s contentions, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012). We accordingly deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Osong (B.I.A. July 13, 2012). We further find that we do not have jurisdiction to review Osong s claim that the Board abused its discretion in declining to reopen her removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Likewise, we lack jurisdiction over her ineffective assistance of counsel claim because she failed to file a petition for review of the Board s order of September 12, 2011 addressing that claim. (1995). See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to these claims. Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART 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.