Filed: Jun. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1897 ARAM YACOUB, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 2, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1897 ARAM YACOUB, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 2, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1897
ARAM YACOUB,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 2, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory
G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Aram Yacoub, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions
for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We
have reviewed the administrative record and find that the Board
did not abuse its discretion. See INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314,
323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we 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