Filed: Aug. 08, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2136 METSLAL MESGUN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 26, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Metslal Mesgun, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristin Kay
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2136 METSLAL MESGUN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 26, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Metslal Mesgun, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristin Kay ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2136
METSLAL MESGUN,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 26, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Metslal Mesgun, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Kristin Kay Edison, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Metslal Mesgun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and find
no abuse of discretion in the Board’s order. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2007) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to
reopen . . . is within the discretion of the Board . . . .”);
Barry v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating abuse
of discretion standard), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). We
therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re: Mesgun (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2007). 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 -