Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Olivia Cortez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 12-1854 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1854 Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 28, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1854 OLIVIA BUKSH CORTEZ, a/k/a Olivia Bukah Cortez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 12, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kai W. De Graaf, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stua
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1854 OLIVIA BUKSH CORTEZ, a/k/a Olivia Bukah Cortez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 12, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kai W. De Graaf, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Russell J. E. Verby, Senior Litigation Counsel, Tim Ramnitz, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Olivia Buksh Cortez, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing Cortez’ appeal from the immigration judge’s removal order and the denial of Cortez’ motion to terminate proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Cortez (B.I.A. June 14, 2012). 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