Filed: Jan. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2523 KOJO OKATA, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-661-505) Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Lee Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Richard M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2523 KOJO OKATA, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-661-505) Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Lee Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Richard Mi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2523 KOJO OKATA, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-661-505) Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall Lee Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Richard Michael Evans, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Laura Marlene Friedman, David V. Bernal, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying relief on his application for asylum and with- holding of deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Okata v. INS, No. A70-661-505 (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 1996). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
