Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Morfaw v. Holder, 08-1249 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1249 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1249 MARTIN AGENDA MORFAW, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 9, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009 Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, Amy M. Grunder, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1249 MARTIN AGENDA MORFAW, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 9, 2009 Decided: February 25, 2009 Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, Amy M. Grunder, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Patrick J. Bumatay, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Martin Agenda Morfaw, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his second motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Morfaw (B.I.A. Jan. 23, 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
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