Filed: Jun. 25, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2238 EZENWA ONWUDINJO UGBOR, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A28-072-083) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 25, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony O. Egbase, ANTHONY EGBASE & ASSOCIATES, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner. Peter
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2238 EZENWA ONWUDINJO UGBOR, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A28-072-083) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 25, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony O. Egbase, ANTHONY EGBASE & ASSOCIATES, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner. Peter ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2238
EZENWA ONWUDINJO UGBOR,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A28-072-083)
Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 25, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony O. Egbase, ANTHONY EGBASE & ASSOCIATES, Los Angeles,
California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Eric W.
Marsteller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ezenwa Onwudinjo Ugbor, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to recalendar immigration
proceedings, which the Board construed as a motion to reopen and
denied for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and
the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See
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: Ugbor, No. A28-072-083 (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 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 -