Filed: Mar. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1824 MABINTY CAMARA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney Gene
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1824 MABINTY CAMARA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney Gener..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1824
MABINTY CAMARA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 27, 2012
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristin
A. Moresi, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mabinty Camara, a native and citizen of Guinea,
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 find no abuse of
discretion in the denial of relief on Camara’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: Camara
(B.I.A. June 28, 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