Filed: Sep. 04, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2288 KATHRYN ANNE INGLESON, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A38-538-659) Submitted: August 20, 2007 Decided: September 4, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2288 KATHRYN ANNE INGLESON, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A38-538-659) Submitted: August 20, 2007 Decided: September 4, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2288 KATHRYN ANNE INGLESON, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A38-538-659) Submitted: August 20, 2007 Decided: September 4, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kathryn Anne Ingleson, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge’s order denying relief from removal. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no error in the Board’s finding that Ingleson is ineligible for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(h)(3) (2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ingleson, No. A38-538-659 (B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2006). 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 -