Filed: Oct. 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1344 ANTHONY N. YENGWIA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-230-324) Submitted: September 2, 2005 Decided: October 25, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Ass
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1344 ANTHONY N. YENGWIA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-230-324) Submitted: September 2, 2005 Decided: October 25, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1344
ANTHONY N. YENGWIA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-230-324)
Submitted: September 2, 2005 Decided: October 25, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt,
Senior Litigation Counsel, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant
Director, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony N. Yengwia, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying 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
Yengwia’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Yengwia,
No. A95-230-324 (B.I.A. Mar. 7, 2005). 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 -