Filed: Mar. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1686 RAHEL WOLDEGEBRIEL HAILE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 27, 2012 Decided: March 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Saffold, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. SAFFOLD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assist
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1686 RAHEL WOLDEGEBRIEL HAILE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 27, 2012 Decided: March 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Saffold, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. SAFFOLD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assista..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1686
RAHEL WOLDEGEBRIEL HAILE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 27, 2012 Decided: March 7, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David R. Saffold, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R. SAFFOLD, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brianne Whelan
Cohen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rahel Woldegebriel Haile, a native and citizen of
Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider.
We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Haile’s motion.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2011). We accordingly deny the
petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
re: Haile (B.I.A. May 31, 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