Filed: May 05, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1246 ETTY THAM, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 20, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wei Jia, LAW OFFICE OF WEI JIA, Boston, Massachusetts, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1246 ETTY THAM, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 20, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wei Jia, LAW OFFICE OF WEI JIA, Boston, Massachusetts, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1246
ETTY THAM,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 20, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wei Jia, LAW OFFICE OF WEI JIA, Boston, Massachusetts, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R.
Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Etty Tham, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed
the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the
denial of relief on Tham’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
(2009). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Tham (B.I.A. Nov. 20,
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