Filed: Apr. 22, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1202 OJUOLAPE OLIVIA OVERSTREET, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Kreiss, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1202 OJUOLAPE OLIVIA OVERSTREET, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Kreiss, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1202 OJUOLAPE OLIVIA OVERSTREET, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 7, 2009 Decided: April 22, 2009 Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Kreiss, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ojuolape Olivia Overstreet, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2) (2008). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Overstreet (B.I.A. Jan. 9, 2008). 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