Filed: Oct. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1206 RUBINA RANJHA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mumtaz A. Wani, WANI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1206 RUBINA RANJHA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mumtaz A. Wani, WANI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1206 RUBINA RANJHA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 15, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mumtaz A. Wani, WANI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer J. Keeney, Senior Litigation Counsel, Arthur L. Rabin, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rubina Ranjha, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Ranjha’s claims and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ranjha, (B.I.A. Jan. 18, 2013). 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