Filed: Mar. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2005 DESMOND ALVIN DOHERTY, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-376-707) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yurika Saito Cooper, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2005 DESMOND ALVIN DOHERTY, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-376-707) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yurika Saito Cooper, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCal..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2005
DESMOND ALVIN DOHERTY,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-376-707)
Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yurika Saito Cooper, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert
D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Christine A. Bither,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul D. Kovac, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Desmond Doherty, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, appeals
from the decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) denying his application for suspension of deportation. We
have reviewed the record and find the Board correctly determined
that Doherty 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 depor-
tation proceedings against him. See Appiah v. INS,
202 F.3d 704
(4th Cir.), cert. denied,
531 U.S. 857 (2000).
For this reason, we deny Doherty’s petition for review and
affirm the decision of the Board. 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.
AFFIRMED
2