Filed: Nov. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1105 OYOYO ADANNA EBUZOEME, a/k/a Oyoyo Adanna Ofurum, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 21, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1105 OYOYO ADANNA EBUZOEME, a/k/a Oyoyo Adanna Ofurum, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 21, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1105 OYOYO ADANNA EBUZOEME, a/k/a Oyoyo Adanna Ofurum, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 21, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle G. Latour, Assistant Director, Joseph A. O’Connell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Oyoyo Adanna Ebuzoeme, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ebuzoeme (B.I.A. Dec. 24, 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. PETITION DENIED 2