Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Tjhendrawan v. Gonzales, 06-2034 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-2034 Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2034 JULIAWATI TJHENDRAWAN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-918-234) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 10, 2007 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Pet
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2034 JULIAWATI TJHENDRAWAN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-918-234) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 10, 2007 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Richard Zanfardino, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juliawati Tjhendrawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Tjhendrawan’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Tjhendrawan, No. A97-918-234 (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 2006). 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