Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Veerkamp v. INS, 92-1556 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-1556 Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 92-1556 RAINER GUIDO VEERKAMP, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A22-609-570) Submitted: September 23, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David N. Soloway, FRAZIER, SOLOWAY & POORAK, Atlanta, Geor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 92-1556 RAINER GUIDO VEERKAMP, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A22-609-570) Submitted: September 23, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David N. Soloway, FRAZIER, SOLOWAY & POORAK, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioner. Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas W. Hussey, Deputy Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Divsiion, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rainer Guido Veerkamp petitions for review of the Board of Im- migration Appeals' reversal of the Immigration Judge's order grant- ing his application for a waiver of deportation under § 212(h) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(h) (West Supp. 1997). The Board of Immigration Appeals granted Veerkamp's motion to reopen deportation proceedings and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings. Therefore, the decision Veerkamp sought to be reviewed no longer is in effect. Because no appeal currently is ripe for review before this court, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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