Filed: Jan. 15, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1855 MARY PRIOLEAU, a/k/a Mary Egboh Oare, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 8, 2013 Decided: January 15, 2013 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vanessa Kaja, Crofton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1855 MARY PRIOLEAU, a/k/a Mary Egboh Oare, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 8, 2013 Decided: January 15, 2013 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vanessa Kaja, Crofton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1855
MARY PRIOLEAU, a/k/a Mary Egboh Oare,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 8, 2013 Decided: January 15, 2013
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vanessa Kaja, Crofton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal,
Assistant Director, Lauren E. Fascett, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mary Prioleau, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her motion for a continuance. We have
reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. See
Lendo v. Gonzales,
493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting
forth standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:
Prioleau (B.I.A. June 13, 2012). We 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