Filed: Aug. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2094 GRACE OLUFUNMILOLA AKINGBALA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-894-373) Submitted: July 25, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2094 GRACE OLUFUNMILOLA AKINGBALA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-894-373) Submitted: July 25, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2094 GRACE OLUFUNMILOLA AKINGBALA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-894-373) Submitted: July 25, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kenneth W. Rosenberg, Tax Division, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Grace Olufunmilola Akingbala, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider the Board’s denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Akingbala’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (2005). We accordingly deny 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 DENIED - 2 -