Filed: Dec. 09, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1279 KIRIL GEORGIEV VUKOV, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-243-363) Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 9, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicolette Glazer, LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER, Century City, California, for Petit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1279 KIRIL GEORGIEV VUKOV, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-243-363) Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 9, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicolette Glazer, LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER, Century City, California, for Petiti..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1279
KIRIL GEORGIEV VUKOV,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-243-363)
Submitted: November 16, 2005 Decided: December 9, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicolette Glazer, LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER, Century City,
California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, M. Jocelyn
Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kiril Georgiev Vukov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying a motion to reopen. We have reviewed the
administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See
INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny
the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See
In re Vukov, A79-243-363 (B.I.A. Feb. 11, 2005). 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 -