Filed: Aug. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1382 KADIJATU BAKARR, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kadijatu Bakarr, Petitioner Pro Se. Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, William Charles Peachey, Office o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1382 KADIJATU BAKARR, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kadijatu Bakarr, Petitioner Pro Se. Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, William Charles Peachey, Office of..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1382
KADIJATU BAKARR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 22, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kadijatu Bakarr, Petitioner Pro Se. Judith Roberta O’Sullivan,
Trial Attorney, William Charles Peachey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kadijatu Bakarr, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her motion to reopen immigration proceedings.
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude
that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the
denial of Bakarr’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a),
1003.23(b)(1) (2011). Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Bakarr
(B.I.A. Mar. 21, 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.
PETITION DENIED
2