Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lalawi v. Gonzales, 04-2518 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2518 Visitors: 18
Filed: Aug. 08, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2518 ABRAHAM LALAWI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-1154 ABRAHAM LALAWI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-341-112) Submitted: July 15, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arm
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2518 ABRAHAM LALAWI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-1154 ABRAHAM LALAWI, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-341-112) Submitted: July 15, 2005 Decided: August 8, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Armin A. Skalmowski, Alhambra, California, for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Brian E. Bentley, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions for review, Abraham Lalawi, a native and citizen of Indonesia who claims he is a Christian of Chinese ethnicity, seeks review of orders issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings (No. 04-2518) and denying his motion to reconsider that order (No. 05-1154). We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Lalawi’s motions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b) (2005). We accordingly deny the petitions for review. 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. PETITIONS DENIED - 3 -
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