Filed: Jun. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2262 ENQUE SHIFERAW, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-343-175) Submitted: May 3, 2004 Decided: June 10, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2262 ENQUE SHIFERAW, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-343-175) Submitted: May 3, 2004 Decided: June 10, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2262
ENQUE SHIFERAW,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-343-175)
Submitted: May 3, 2004 Decided: June 10, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Russell J.E. Verby, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Enque Shiferaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings.
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Shiferaw’s motion to
reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S.
314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review
on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Shiferaw, No. A78-343-
175 (BIA Sept. 23, 2003). 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 -