UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GETU TADDESE,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                       No. 98-2043
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A72-382-738)

Submitted: March 30, 1999

Decided: April 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Onyebuchi N. Enechionyia, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank
W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Assis-
tant Director, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Getu Taddese, a native Ethiopian, appeals from a Board of Immi-
gration Appeals ("BIA") order that denied as untimely his motion to
reopen the decision of the Immigration Judge finding him deportable
and denying his application for asylum. We affirm.

We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under an abuse
of discretion standard. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992);
Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). Denial of a
motion to reopen "must be reviewed with extreme deference," since
immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable
regulations disfavor motions to reopen." M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304,
308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). A motion to reopen deportation or
exclusion proceedings must generally be filed "not later than 90 days
after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered
in the proceedings sought to be reopened or on or before September
30, 1996, whichever is later." 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2)(1998). Here, the
BIA's final decision was entered July 1, 1996;* Taddese's motion to
reopen was filed June 23, 1997, well beyond the 90-day limitation.

Accordingly, we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
denying Taddese's motion to reopen and affirm the BIA's order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*The BIA's order and a transcript of the hearing were served on Tad-
dese's counsel, in compliance with the applicable regulation. See 8
C.F.R. § 292.5(a) (1998).

                    2
