UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1672

GHOLAMREZA ASLIYALFANI,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD; LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS, Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project,

Amici Curiae.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A28-290-015)

Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roberta Freedman, PEDERSON & FREEDMAN, Washington, D.C., for Peti- tioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Mary Kenney, Barbara Hines, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS, San Antonio, Texas; Claudia Slovinsky, LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIA SLOVINSKY, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Gholamreza Asliyalfani, a native and citizen of Iran, seeks

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) decision to

deny his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Asliyalfani

sought to reopen the proceedings for the purpose of applying for

suspension of deportation. However, Asliyalfani did not meet the

continuous presence requirement for suspension of deportation

because he failed to accrue seven years of continuous physical

presence prior to the initiation of deportation proceedings against

him. See Appiah v. INS, No. 97-1705,

(4th Cir. Jan.

20, 2000). Therefore, we deny Asliyalfani’s petition for review

and affirm the decision of the Board. We dispense with oral argu-

ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3