Filed: Nov. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1524 PYI SONE AYE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before KING, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carmen DiAmore-Siah, LAW OFFICE OF CARMEN DIAMORE-SIAH, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorn
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1524 PYI SONE AYE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before KING, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carmen DiAmore-Siah, LAW OFFICE OF CARMEN DIAMORE-SIAH, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorne..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1524
PYI SONE AYE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010
Before KING, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carmen DiAmore-Siah, LAW OFFICE OF CARMEN DIAMORE-SIAH,
Honolulu, Hawaii, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca
Hoffberg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pyi Sone Aye, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings.
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no
abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010) (setting
forth standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition
for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: Aye
(B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2010). 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