Filed: Apr. 07, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1541 FASIL ATLE DESTA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-204-006) Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: April 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda A. Dominguez, L A DOMINGUEZ LAW, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1541 FASIL ATLE DESTA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-204-006) Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: April 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda A. Dominguez, L A DOMINGUEZ LAW, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1541
FASIL ATLE DESTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-204-006)
Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: April 7, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linda A. Dominguez, L A DOMINGUEZ LAW, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fasil Atle Desta, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider a prior order of
the Board denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have
reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion
in the Board’s order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007) (standard of
review); Jean v. Gonzales,
435 F.3d 475, 481, 482-83 (4th Cir.
2006) (same). We therefore deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Desta, No. A97-204-006
(B.I.A. May 18, 2007). 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 -