Filed: May 10, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2042 MICHAEL ZEFERU WELDETENSAYE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 4, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Allen Garfield, GARFIELD LAW GROUP LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney Ge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2042 MICHAEL ZEFERU WELDETENSAYE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 4, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Allen Garfield, GARFIELD LAW GROUP LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney Gen..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2042
MICHAEL ZEFERU WELDETENSAYE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 4, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Allen Garfield, GARFIELD LAW GROUP LLP, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer
Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Zeferu Weldetensaye, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider.
We have reviewed the administrative 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); Narine v. Holder,
559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of
review). We therefore deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Weldetensaye (B.I.A.
Aug. 16, 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