Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sviatlana Davydzenka v. Eric Holder, Jr., 11-2377 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-2377 Visitors: 40
Filed: Jul. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2377 SVIATLANA DAVYDZENKA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: July 11, 2012 Before KING, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Holly M. Sm
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2377 SVIATLANA DAVYDZENKA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: July 11, 2012 Before KING, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jane T. Schaffner, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Sviatlana Davydzenka, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative record and Davydzenka’s contentions, and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on her motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2012). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Davydzenka (B.I.A. Nov. 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
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