Filed: Jan. 13, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1380 IMAD ISSA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A23-105-916) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 13, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard W. Moore, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD W. MOORE, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1380 IMAD ISSA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A23-105-916) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 13, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard W. Moore, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD W. MOORE, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1380 IMAD ISSA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A23-105-916) Submitted: December 23, 2004 Decided: January 13, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard W. Moore, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD W. MOORE, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Daniel E. Goldman, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Imad Issa, a native and citizen of Lebanon, seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), 1227(a)(2)(B) (2000). We accordingly dismiss the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED - 2 -