Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Basung v. Gonzales, 04-2100 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2100 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 04, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2100 SIKOD BASUNG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-235-632) Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 4, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2100 SIKOD BASUNG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-235-632) Submitted: March 23, 2005 Decided: April 4, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Robert K. Coulter, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sikod Basung, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen and to reconsider its previous order affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Basung’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Basung, No. A79-235-632 (B.I.A. Aug. 17, 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 - 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