
    Tchammouo Robert LEDOUX, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-1105.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 18, 2006.
    Decided: Oct. 4, 2006.
    Patrick G. Tzeuton, Law Offices of Patrick Tzeuton and Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division, Larry A. Brown, Natural Resources Section, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Ledoux Tchammouo, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). Denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor such motions. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). This court reverses the Board’s denial of such a motion only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry, 445 F.3d at 745. We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.  