Filed: Dec. 01, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1563 MULBAH FORD DUWANA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 3, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mulbah Ford Duwana, Petitioner Pro Se. Edward Earl Wiggers, David H. Wetmore, Office of Immigration Litigatio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1563 MULBAH FORD DUWANA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 3, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mulbah Ford Duwana, Petitioner Pro Se. Edward Earl Wiggers, David H. Wetmore, Office of Immigration Litigation..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1563
MULBAH FORD DUWANA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 3, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mulbah Ford Duwana, Petitioner Pro Se. Edward Earl Wiggers,
David H. Wetmore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mulbah Ford Duwana, a native and citizen of Liberia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider its refusal
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)
(2010). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Duwana (B.I.A. Apr. 22,
2010). 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