Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Awoyemi v. Ashcroft, 04-1188 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1188 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 15, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1188 KOLAWOLE I. AWOYEMI, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-836-158) Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1188 KOLAWOLE I. AWOYEMI, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A75-836-158) Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Goren, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GOREN, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ernesto H. Molina, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kolawole I. Awoyemi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen and to reconsider its previous order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Awoyemi’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Awoyemi, No. A75-836-158 (B.I.A. Jan. 15, 2004). 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 -
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