Filed: Mar. 12, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1272 TADDESSEE HAGOS BERAKI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-340-542) Submitted: March 4, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bryl, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1272 TADDESSEE HAGOS BERAKI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-340-542) Submitted: March 4, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bryl, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1272 TADDESSEE HAGOS BERAKI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-340-542) Submitted: March 4, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bryl, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Taddessee Hagos Beraki, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and Beraki’s claims and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b) (2007). 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 -