Salamatou Maikido v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 17-2329 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2329 SALAMATOU ISSAKA MAIKIDO, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 20, 2018 Decided: August 2, 2018 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter E. Torres, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Salamatou Issaka Maikido, a native and citizen of Niger, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying Maikido’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We have reviewed the Board’s order, in conjunction with the administrative record, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the motion was both number- and time-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), or in agreeing that Maikido failed to substantially comply with the requirements of In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). See Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745–47 (4th Cir. 2006). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Maikido (B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2017). Maikido also challenges the agency’s refusal to exercise its authority to reopen her proceedings sua sponte. We lack jurisdiction to review how the agency exercises its sua sponte discretion. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206–07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 398–99 (4th Cir. 2009). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part. 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. PETITION DENIED IN PART; 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.
