Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Diop v. Holder, 07-1415 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1415 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jun. 15, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1415 ASTOU DIOP, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 28, 2008 Decided: June 15, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clement A. Tatoh, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Atto
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1415 ASTOU DIOP, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 28, 2008 Decided: June 15, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clement A. Tatoh, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sarah Maloney, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Astou Diop, a native and citizen of Senegal, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision to deny relief from removal. Diop first challenges the IJ’s finding that she knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application. Upon our review of the administrative record and the IJ’s decision, we uphold the finding that Diop’s asylum application was frivolous. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2008). Next, Diop argues that the IJ erred in denying withholding of removal. Diop fails to demonstrate, however, that she is entitled to such relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). 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 -
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