Filed: Feb. 28, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1766 BOZENA GOSSETT, a/k/a Bozena Iratova, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-417-800) Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: February 28, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David F. Vedder, DAVID F. VEDDER, P.A., D
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1766 BOZENA GOSSETT, a/k/a Bozena Iratova, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-417-800) Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: February 28, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David F. Vedder, DAVID F. VEDDER, P.A., Da..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1766
BOZENA GOSSETT, a/k/a Bozena Iratova,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-417-800)
Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: February 28, 2005
Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David F. Vedder, DAVID F. VEDDER, P.A., Daytona Beach, Florida, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bozena Gossett, a native and citizen of the Czech
Republic, petitions for review of an order of the immigration
judge, as affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying her
motion to reopen. Our review of the denial of a motion to reopen
is extremely deferential, and the decision will not be reversed
absent abuse of discretion. Stewart v. INS,
181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th
Cir. 1999). Such motions are disfavored. INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S.
314, 323 (1992). We have reviewed the administrative record and
conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in affirming
the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen. 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 -