Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1503 JONAS OKWUCHUKWU OKWARA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 16, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DUNCAN and AGEE Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1503 JONAS OKWUCHUKWU OKWARA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 16, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DUNCAN and AGEE Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1503
JONAS OKWUCHUKWU OKWARA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 16, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before DUNCAN and AGEE Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Wendy Benner-León, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonas Okwuchukwu Okwara, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen as untimely and
numerically barred. 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) (2015). We therefore deny the petition
for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:
Okwara (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2015). 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