Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Che v. Mukasey, 07-1857 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1857 Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 12, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1857 DIVINE AWAH CHE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 7, 2008 Decided: August 12, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Holmes, KARAM & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Bloomington, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1857 DIVINE AWAH CHE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 7, 2008 Decided: August 12, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elizabeth Holmes, KARAM & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Bloomington, Minnesota, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Divine Awah Che, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings because of changed conditions in Cameroon. We have reviewed the record and conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (West 2005 & Supp. 2008); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Che (B.I.A. July 31, 2007). Further, we grant Che’s motion to submit on briefs. 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