Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Tefera v. Ashcroft, 04-1931 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1931 Visitors: 53
Filed: Feb. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1931 SABA GETACHEW TEFERA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-477-667) Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: February 8, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK, Riverdale, Maryland, for Petitioner
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1931 SABA GETACHEW TEFERA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-477-667) Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: February 8, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oti W. Nwosu, Arthur D. Wright, III, THE WRIGHT LAW NETWORK, Riverdale, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Saul Greenstein, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Saba Getachew Tefera, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) construing her motion to reconsider as a motion to reopen and denying the motion as barred by the numerical limitation set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2004). We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Tefera, No. A79-477-667 (B.I.A. June 29, 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