Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wawa v. INS, 02-1636 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1636 Visitors: 26
Filed: Jan. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1636 KOYO VICTORIEN WAWA; EMMA GOUHOUNOU WAWA, Petitioners, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-504-283, A72-418-061) Submitted: November 4, 2002 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1636 KOYO VICTORIEN WAWA; EMMA GOUHOUNOU WAWA, Petitioners, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-504-283, A72-418-061) Submitted: November 4, 2002 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioners. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brenda M. O’Malley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Koyo Victorien Wawa and Emma Gouhounou Wawa seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) decision and order denying their motion for reconsideration of its previous denial of their motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Our review of the record discloses that the Board properly denied the motion for reconsideration and that this petition is without merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See Wawa v. INS, Nos. A70-504-283; A72-418-061 (B.I.A. May 15, 2002). 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. PETITION DENIED 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