VEDMETSKIY v. LYNCH, 15-1195. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20151014094
Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Yuriy Sergeyevich Vedmetskiy, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to consolidate his appeal with his wife's appeal of her removal order. * Because the Board had already dismissed the wife's appeal by the time it adjudicated Vedmetskiy's motion, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denyi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM . Yuriy Sergeyevich Vedmetskiy, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to consolidate his appeal with his wife's appeal of her removal order. * Because the Board had already dismissed the wife's appeal by the time it adjudicated Vedmetskiy's motion, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denyin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Yuriy Sergeyevich Vedmetskiy, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to consolidate his appeal with his wife's appeal of her removal order.* Because the Board had already dismissed the wife's appeal by the time it adjudicated Vedmetskiy's motion, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate as moot. We therefore deny the petition for review. See In re: Vedmetskiy (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 2015).
Moreover, because we have also denied his wife's petition for review, see Chepurina v. Holder, 599 F. App'x 501 (4th Cir. 2015), we deny as moot Vedmetskiy's request that we consolidate their petitions on appeal. 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.
FootNotes
* Vedmetskiy only challenges this aspect of the Board's decision.
Source: Leagle
