Filed: Mar. 14, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2499 TECLE FESSEHAYE SEBHATU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 14, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tecle Fessehaye Sebhatu, Petitioner Pro Se. Matthew Albert Connelly, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2499 TECLE FESSEHAYE SEBHATU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 14, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tecle Fessehaye Sebhatu, Petitioner Pro Se. Matthew Albert Connelly, Office of Immigration Litigation, U..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2499 TECLE FESSEHAYE SEBHATU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 14, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tecle Fessehaye Sebhatu, Petitioner Pro Se. Matthew Albert Connelly, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tecle Fessehaye Sebhatu, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2012). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Sebhatu (B.I.A. Nov. 23, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
