Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Timi Jones v. Jefferson Sessions III, 16-2460 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-2460 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2460 TIMI STEPHEN JONES, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 8, 2017 Decided: June 20, 2017 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-2460


TIMI STEPHEN JONES,

                    Petitioner,

             v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

                    Respondent.



On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.


Submitted: June 8, 2017                                           Decided: June 20, 2017


Before MOTZ, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.


H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioner.
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant
Director, Lance L. Jolley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Timi Stephen Jones, a native and citizen of Liberia, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion for reconsideration. We

have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its

discretion by denying reconsideration. See Urbina v. Holder, 
745 F.3d 736
, 741 (4th Cir.

2014). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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