Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vefonge v. Gonzales, 04-2067 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2067 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2067 JESINTA N. VEFONGE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-892-899) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 25, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2067 JESINTA N. VEFONGE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-892-899) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: March 25, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Araceli Carrigan, Senior Attorney Advisor, Susan Lea Smith, Senior Trial Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jesinta N. Vefonge, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen or reconsider its previous decision affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, as to the claims over which we retain jurisdiction,* we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Vefonge, No. A77-892-899 (B.I.A. July 28, 2004). 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 * On December 9, 2004, we granted the Attorney General’s motion for partial dismissal of the petition for review on the ground that we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that Vefonge’s asylum application was untimely filed and to review the denial of her request for voluntary departure. - 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