Filed: Mar. 22, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1963 HOWARD DEAN BAILEY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 22, 2012 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeanné T. Anderson, Nosuk Pak Kim, COWARDIN & KIM, PLC, Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1963 HOWARD DEAN BAILEY, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 22, 2012 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeanné T. Anderson, Nosuk Pak Kim, COWARDIN & KIM, PLC, Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1963
HOWARD DEAN BAILEY,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 22, 2012
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeanné T. Anderson, Nosuk Pak Kim, COWARDIN & KIM, PLC, Newport
News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, David H.
Wetmore, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Howard Dean Bailey, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motions to reconsider and reopen.
We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Bailey’s motions.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2011). We accordingly deny the
petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Bailey (B.I.A. Aug. 9, 2011). We grant the Attorney
General’s motion to strike pages 169-230 of the joint appendix,
and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2