Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tafesse v. INS, 01-2203 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2203 Visitors: 10
Filed: May 29, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2203 FREHIWOT TAFESSE, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A74-674-106) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frehiwot Tafesse, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul J. McNulty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2203 FREHIWOT TAFESSE, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A74-674-106) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frehiwot Tafesse, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul J. McNulty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Allen Warren Hausman, Assistant Director, Joshua Eric Terrence Braunstein, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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). PER CURIAM: Frehiwot Tafesse, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a), (b)(1) (2001); Matter of Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399 (BIA 1991). We accordingly affirm the Board’s order. We grant Respondent’s motion for leave to file answering brief out of time, and 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer