Filed: Mar. 12, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1685 MILDRED BIH NGANG, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-589) Submitted: February 29, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH AND ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1685 MILDRED BIH NGANG, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-589) Submitted: February 29, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH AND ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petiti..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1685 MILDRED BIH NGANG, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-589) Submitted: February 29, 2008 Decided: March 12, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH AND ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Erica B. Miles, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the record and Ngang’s claims and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Ngang’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (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 -