Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

George Pinanko v. Janet Napolitano, 11-1169 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-1169 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1169 GEORGE OSAM PINANKO; STELLA OPOKU, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; SARAH TAYLOR, Director, Washington District Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1169 GEORGE OSAM PINANKO; STELLA OPOKU, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; SARAH TAYLOR, Director, Washington District Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:10-cv-01138-LMB-TRJ) Submitted: October 12, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Anna E. Cross, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Osam Pinanko and Stella Opoku appeal the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice their Petition for Writ of Mandamus or for Review of Agency Action under the Administrative Procedure Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pinanko v. Napolitano, No. 1:10-cv-01138-LMB-TRJ (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 2011). 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. AFFIRMED 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