Filed: Jan. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1747 SAMUEL YEBOAH DUKU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 17, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1747 SAMUEL YEBOAH DUKU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 17, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for P..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1747
SAMUEL YEBOAH DUKU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 17, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristin
Moresi, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Samuel Yeboah Duku, a native and citizen of Ghana,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing Duku’s appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of Duku’s motion to reconsider or reopen. We
have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order
and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)
(2014). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for
the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Duku (B.I.A. June
27, 2014).
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to
exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore
dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Mosere v.
Mukasey,
552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
2