Filed: Apr. 21, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1960 MILDRED BIH NGANG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-589) Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 21, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorne
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1960 MILDRED BIH NGANG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-589) Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 21, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1960 MILDRED BIH NGANG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-589) Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 21, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Mildred Bih Ngang, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Ngang’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2005). We accordingly deny the petition 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. PETITION DENIED - 2 -