Filed: Mar. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2203 AHMED GBADANSI MURTALA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A72-163-325) Submitted: March 3, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2203 AHMED GBADANSI MURTALA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A72-163-325) Submitted: March 3, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assist..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2203
AHMED GBADANSI MURTALA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (A72-163-325)
Submitted: March 3, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, John C.
Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Larry P. Cote, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ahmed Gbadansi Murtala, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen deportation
proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and
find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
Murtala’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003);
INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny
the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re:
Murtala, No. A72-163-325 (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 2003). 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 -