Filed: Aug. 31, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1609 SEKOU DIABY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-2158 SEKOU DIABY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 11, 2009 Decided: August 31, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOH
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1609 SEKOU DIABY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-2158 SEKOU DIABY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 11, 2009 Decided: August 31, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHN..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1609 SEKOU DIABY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-2158 SEKOU DIABY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 11, 2009 Decided: August 31, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Zoe J. Heller, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sekou Diaby, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motions to reopen and reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on Diaby’s motions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b), (c) (2009). We accordingly deny the petitions for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Diaby (B.I.A. Apr. 23 & Sept. 26, 2008). 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. PETITIONS DENIED 3