Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1819 BASHKIM BAJRAKTARI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: June 3, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Joy
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1819 BASHKIM BAJRAKTARI, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: June 3, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Joyc..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1819
BASHKIM BAJRAKTARI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: June 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Ilissa M. Gould, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bashkim Bajraktari, a native and citizen of Albania,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have
thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and Bajraktari’s
claims on appeal and conclude that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion as time-barred. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c) (2014). We therefore deny the petition for review
for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Bajraktari
(B.I.A. July 17, 2014). 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