Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Henry Anjofei v. Eric Holder, Jr., 12-1597 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1597 Visitors: 23
Filed: Nov. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1597 HENRY ANJOFEI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 19, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steffanie J. Lewis, THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Deler
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1597 HENRY ANJOFEI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 19, 2012 Decided: November 29, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steffanie J. Lewis, THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Assistant Director, Gary J. Newkirk, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Anjofei, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Anjofei’s contentions, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Anjofei’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Anjofei, (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2012). We decline to consider new evidence cited by Anjofei in his brief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (2006), and 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