Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nigisti Betow v. Eric Holder, Jr., 13-1761 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1761 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1761 NIGISTI WOLDEHAWARIAT BETOW, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 25, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petition
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1761 NIGISTI WOLDEHAWARIAT BETOW, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 25, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014 Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, E. Tayo Otunla, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Nigisti Woldehawariat Betow, a native of Eritrea and a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding Betow ineligible for adjustment of status as an alien who knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Betow knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application. See Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 155-60 (B.I.A. 2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Betow, (B.I.A. May 23, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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